{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69816/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69816","id":"gutenberg_69816","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69816","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Sermons","Dialogues, English","Great Britain -- Civilization -- 17th century","Poetry -- History and criticism","Romances -- History and criticism"],"text":"[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nItalicized text delimited by underscores.\n\nThere are many special characters in this text that require a utf-8\ncompliant font. If you find characters that appear as a question mark in\na black box or a small rectangle with numbers in it, you should check\nyour reader\u2019s default font. If you have a font installed with SIL after\nthe font name, you should use that one.]\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n WORKS\n\n OF\n\n RICHARD HURD, D.D.\n\n LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.\n\n VOL. VII.\n\n Printed by J. Nichols and Son,\n Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n WORKS\n\n OF\n\n RICHARD HURD, D.D.\n\n LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.\n\n IN EIGHT VOLUMES.\n\n VOL. VII.\n\n [Illustration]\n\n LONDON:\n\n PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.\n\n 1811.\n\n\n\n\n THEOLOGICAL WORKS.\n\n VOL. III.\n\n\n\n\n SERMONS\n\n PREACHED AT\n\n LINCOLN\u2019S-INN,\n\n BETWEEN THE YEARS 1765 AND 1776:\n\n WITH\n\n A LARGER DISCOURSE,\n\n ON\n\n CHRIST\u2019S DRIVING THE MERCHANTS\n OUT OF THE TEMPLE;\n\n IN WHICH THE NATURE AND END OF THAT FAMOUS\n\n TRANSACTION IS EXPLAINED.\n\n SATIS ME VIXISSE ARBITRABOR, ET OFFICIUM\n HOMINIS IMPLESSE, SI LABOR MEUS ALIQUOS\n HOMINES, AB ERRORIBUS LIBERATOS, AD ITER\n C\u0152LESTE DIREXERIT.\n LACTANTIUS.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nOF\n\nTHE SEVENTH VOLUME.\n\n\n SERMON XXIX. Preached March 21, 1773.\n\n ACTS xxiv. 24, 25.\n\n _After certain days, when Felix came with his\n wife Drusilla, which was a Jew, he sent\n for Paul, and heard him concerning the\n faith of Christ. And, as he reasoned of\n righteousness, temperance, and judgment to\n come, Felix trembled, and answered_, GO\n THY WAY FOR THIS TIME, WHEN I HAVE A\n CONVENIENT SEASON, I WILL CALL FOR\n THEE. 1\n\n\n SERMON XXX. Preached Dec. 19, 1773.\n\n 1 JOHN v. 11.\n\n _And this is the record, that God hath given to\n us eternal life; and_ THIS LIFE IS IN HIS\n SON. 18\n\n\n SERMON XXXI. Preached June 12, 1774.\n\n GAL. vi. 8.\n\n _He that soweth to the Spirit, shall_ OF THE\n SPIRIT REAP LIFE EVERLASTING. 32\n\n\n SERMON XXXII. Preached June 19, 1774.\n\n 2 COR. vii. 1.\n\n _Having therefore these promises (dearly beloved)\n let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness\n of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness\n in the fear of God._ 46\n\n\n SERMON XXXIII. Preached April 28, 1776.\n\n 1 TIM. iii. 16.\n\n _Without controversy great is the mystery of\n godliness: God was manifest in the flesh;\n justified in the spirit; seen of Angels;\n preached to the Gentiles; believed on in the\n world; received up into glory._ 62\n\n\n SERMON XXXIV. Preached May 19, 1776.\n\n ISAIAH l. 11.\n\n _Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass\n yourselves about with sparks; Walk in the\n light of your fire, and in the sparks which\n ye have kindled: This shall ye have of my\n hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow._ 77\n\n\n SERMON XXXV. Preached Nov. 15, 1767.\n\n 2 COR. iv. 3.\n\n _If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that\n are lost._ 95\n\n\n SERMON XXXVI. Preached Nov. 13, 1774.\n\n 1 PETER iii. 15.\n\n _\u2014Be ready always to give an answer to every\n man that asketh you a reason of the hope\n that is in you, with meekness and fear._ 110\n\n\n SERMON XXXVII. Preached Feb. 4, 1770.\n\n JOHN vii. 46.\n\n _Never man spake like this man._ 124\n\n\n SERMON XXXVIII. Preached Nov. 20, 1774.\n\n MATTH. xiii. 10.\n\n _The Disciples came, and said unto him, Why\n speakest Thou to them in Parables?_ 143\n\n\n SERMON XXXIX. Preached Nov. 27, 1774.\n\n MATTH. xiii. 58.\n\n _And he did not many mighty works there, because\n of their unbelief._ 159\n\n\n SERMON XL. Preached May 23, 1773.\n\n 2 COR. iv. 5.\n\n _We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the\n Lord._ 176\n\n\n SERMON XLI. Preached. Dec. 15, 1771.\n\n MATTH. xi. 5.\n\n _The Poor have the Gospel preached unto\n them._ 193\n\n\n SERMON XLII. Preached Jan. 24, 1773.\n\n JOHN xiv. 2.\n\n _In my Father\u2019s house are many mansions: if\n it were not so, I would have told you._ 210\n\n\n SERMON XLIII. Preached May 5, 1776.\n\n JOHN xvi. 12, 13.\n\n _I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye\n cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he,\n the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will guide\n you into all truth: for he shall not speak\n of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,\n that shall he speak: and he will shew you\n things to come._ 222\n\n\n SERMON XLIV. Preached May 29, 1774. T.S.\n\n ACTS i. 11.\n\n _Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up\n into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken\n up from you, shall so come, in like manner\n as ye have seen him go into heaven._ 237\n\n\n SERMON XLV. Preached June 23, 1776.\n\n St. MATTH. xiii. 55, 56.\n\n _Is not this the carpenter\u2019s son? Is not his\n mother called Mary? And his brethren,\n James and Joses and Simon and Judas?\n And his sisters, are not they all with us?\n Whence then hath this man all these things?\n And they were offended in him._ 253\n\n\n SERMON XLVI. Preached Feb. 4, 1776.\n\n JAMES iv. 7.\n\n _Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you._ 267\n\n\n SERMON XLVII. Preached March 29, 1772.\n\n PROV. xvi. 6.\n\n _By the fear of the Lord men depart from\n evil._ 283\n\n\n SERMON XLVIII. Preached May 31, 1772.\n\n 1 COR. vi. 12.\n\n _All things are lawful unto, me; but all things\n are not expedient: All things are lawful for\n me; but I will not be brought under the\n power of any._ 296\n\n\n SERMON XLIX. Preached July 5, 1772.\n\n MATTH. v. 38, 39, 40, 41.\n\n _Ye have heared that it hath been said, an eye\n for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I\n say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but\n whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,\n turn to him the other also: And, if any\n man will sue thee at the law, and take away\n thy coat, let him have thy cloak also: And\n whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile,\n go with him twain._ 310\n\n\n SERMON L. Preached May 14, 1775.\n\n LUKE ix. 26.\n\n _Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my\n words, of him shall the Son of man be\n ashamed, when he shall come in his own\n glory and in his Father\u2019s, and of the holy\n Angels._ 327\n\n\n SERMON LI. Preached May 21, 1775.\n\n LUKE ix. 26.\n\n _Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my\n words, of him shall the Son of man be\n ashamed, when he shall come in his own\n glory, and in his Father\u2019s, and of the holy\n Angels._ 341\n\n\n SERMON LII. Preached Jan. 29, 1775.\n\n St. MATTH. xvi. 18.\n\n _I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon\n this rock I will build my Church; and the\n gates of Hell shall not prevail against it._ 354\n\n\n SERMON LIII. Preached Feb. 5, 1775.\n\n St. MATTH. xvi. 18.\n\n _And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter,\n and upon this rock will I build my Church,\n and the gates of Hell shall not prevail\n against it._ 367\n\n\n A LARGER DISCOURSE, _by way of Commentary,\n on that remarkable Part of the Gospel-history,\n in which Jesus is represented, as\n driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the\n Temple_[1]. 383\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXIX.\n\nPREACHED MARCH 21, 1773.\n\nACTS xxiv. 24, 25.\n\n_After certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a\nJewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith of Christ.\nAnd, as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,\nFelix trembled, and answered_, GO THY WAY FOR THIS TIME; WHEN I HAVE A\nCONVENIENT SEASON, I WILL CALL FOR THEE.\n\n\nThis Felix, whose name is become so memorable in the Christian church,\nhad been made Procurator of Jud\u00e6a by the Emperor Claudius, and continued\nin that government during the six or seven first years of Nero: when\nhe was recalled to answer for his oppressive administration before the\nemperor; who, we are told, would have punished him, according to his\ndeserts, but for the interposition of Pallas, at that time Nero\u2019s chief\nminister.\n\nHe was, indeed, in all respects a very corrupt and profligate man, as\nappears from the testimony of Tacitus[2] and Josephus[3]; from whom we\nlearn, that he was more especially addicted to the vices of _lust and\ncruelty_; both which he exercised in the most audacious manner; vexing\nthe people with all sorts of oppression, and rioting in his excesses,\nwithout restraint. Drusilla, too, is represented to us in a light, not\nmuch more favourable. For, though a Jewess, and the wife of another man,\nshe had contracted a marriage, or rather lived in adultery with this\npagan governor of Jud\u00e6a; transgressing at once both a moral and positive\nlaw of her religion, for the sake of ascending to that honour.\n\nOne would wonder how persons of this character should have any curiosity\nto _hear Paul concerning the faith of Christ_. And, without doubt,\nthey had no serious desire of information. It is likely they proposed\nto themselves some entertainment from questioning the prisoner; and the\npresence of Drusilla makes it credible that the entertainment was chiefly\ndesigned for _her_; who might be a bigot to her religion, though she\nscorned to live up to it; and therefore wanted, we may suppose, to insult\nJesus in the person of his disciple.\n\nHowever, let their purpose be what it would, such were FELIX and\nDRUSILLA, before whom Paul _reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and a\njudgment to come_.\n\nPaul was not in the number of those complaisant preachers, who take a\ntext, in which their hearers have no concern. He had to do with persons,\nwho bade defiance to religion in all its forms; and his subject was well\nsuited to the occasion. They expected an amusing tale of Jesus Christ:\nbut the Apostle, who knew how unworthy they were of being instructed in\nthe faith, as not yet possessing the fist principles of morals, took up\nthe matter a great deal higher; and, discoursing to them on the natural\nduties of justice and temperance, which they had grossly violated, and\non the natural doctrine of a judgment to come, which they had never\nbelieved or respected, gave them to understand, that they had much to\nlearn, or practise at least, before they were fit hearers of what he had\nfurther to say concerning the Christian revelation.\n\nBeing taken at this advantage, we may easily conceive their surprise and\ndisappointment: and, as the speaker knew how to give an energy to his\ndiscourse on these interesting topics, we cannot wonder, that one or both\nof them should be much discomposed by it. Of Drusilla the sacred text\nsays nothing: she was, perhaps, the more skilful dissembler of the two;\nor her rage and indignation might, for the moment, get the better of her\nfears: but Felix had not the address, or the fortune, to disguise his\nfeelings; he _trembled_ before this plain, intrepid speaker.\n\nThis event is instructive, indeed, as it sets before us the power of\nconscience over the worst of men; and, at the same time, the meanness\nof guilt, which, in such place and dignity, could not help shrinking at\nthe voice of truth, though speaking by the mouth of a poor dependant\nprisoner. But when we have made the proper use of these reflexions, on\nthe case of Felix, we shall find a still more instructive lesson in _the\nsubsequent conduct of this affrighted sinner_.\n\nWhen the fit of trembling came upon him, he said hastily to the preacher:\n_Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call\nfor thee._\n\nHow striking a picture of that fatal disposition which men have to put\noff repentance, even under the fullest conviction of guilt; and that too,\non the most frivolous pretences! What Felix should have done instantly,\nwhen his conscience was so much alarmed, he omits to do: _Go thy way for\nthis time_: and yet, to quiet that conscience, he would not be thought to\nlay aside all purpose of reformation: _When I have a convenient season, I\nwill call for thee._\n\nWith this famous example in my eye, I shall attempt to shew in the\nfollowing discourse: 1. _That_ PROCRASTINATION _is the usual support of\nvice_: 2. _That false reasoning_, or, what we may call, _the_ SOPHISTRY\nOF VICE, _is the great support of procrastination_: 3. That a FINAL\nIMPENITENCE is the too common effect of this pernicious confederacy. And\n\nI. PROCRASTINATION is the main support of vice; the favourite stratagem,\nby which the grand deceiver himself ensnares the souls of men, and\nmaintains his empire over them.\n\nThere are few persons so desperately wicked but they resolve, secretly\nat least, and in their own minds, to amend their bad lives, at some time\nor other. But that time is rarely the present. They have other business\nin hand: some scheme of interest to manage, some project of ambition to\npursue, some intrigue of pleasure to accomplish; in short, some darling\nsin or other to gratify, before they can be at leisure to execute this\nintended work of reformation.\n\nNay, there are seasons of recollection, in which the memory of their past\nlives afflicts and torments them; there are hours of melancholy, or ill\nhealth, in which the necessity of repentance seems pressing and instant;\nthere are certain moments of terror, in which the final resolution is on\nthe point of being taken: yet still, this delusive idea of _to-morrow_\nsteps in: the memory, the necessity, the terror, are over-ruled: the\nungrateful task is, for the present, deferred; to-morrow laid aside, and\nthe next day forgotten.\n\nThis was the case of Felix in the text. When bad men are clothed with\npower, it is not easy for truth of any kind, especially for moral truth,\nto gain access to them. Yet it made its way to this potent governor,\nand with a force which nothing could resist. It borrowed the thunder of\nPaul\u2019s rhetoric to speak home and loudly to his affrighted conscience.\nIt shook his guilty mind with the sense of his crimes, his incontinence\nand injustice, his riot and rapine, his lust and cruelty; and still more,\nwith the apprehension of _a judgment to come_, armed with terror, and\nready to take vengeance of his multiplied iniquities.\n\nYou expect now, that, in this agony, he should take the part, which duty\nand prudence, his conviction and his fears, equally recommended to him.\nYou expect, that he should apply to his instructor, who had raised this\nstorm, to compose it; and that, leaving his chair of state, he should\nspring forth and accost his prisoner, as the honest jaylor at Philippi\nhad done, on a similar occasion: _What must I do to be saved[4]?_ But,\nno; it was not yet convenient to put that question. His pleasures, his\nfortune, his ambition, might be endangered by it. It was not the moment\nto take this decisive step. Better to think twice of it, and dismiss the\npreacher _for this time_.\n\nAnd is there nothing in this case which we may apply to ourselves? Is\nthere none here, whom the free remonstrance of a friend, an unexpected\nsentence in a moral writer, the admonition of a preacher, and, above\nall, the _word of God_, hath, at any time, awakened to a lively sense\nof his condition? A reproof from one or other of these sometimes falls\nin so exactly with a man\u2019s own case, and goes so directly to the heart,\nthat he is more than commonly disturbed and confounded by it. It flashes\nsuch conviction on the mind, and shews the sinner to himself in so just\na light, that he stands aghast at the deformity of his conduct, and at\nthe peril of it. In the agitation of this distress, he half resolves to\nrepent: nay, he strives for a moment to enforce this good resolution:\nwhen, let but that d\u00e6mon, which every sinner carries about with him,\nwhisper the word, _to-morrow_, and his conscience revives, his fears\ndisperse, and this precious opportunity is lost, though at the hazard of\nnever returning any more.\n\nNot that he permits this idle insinuation to banish all thoughts of\nfuture repentance, or to prevail with him, for the present, in its true\nand proper form: No: to be thus far the dupe of his own folly, would\ndisgrace him too much, and expose his prevarication too plainly: if it\npass upon him, it shall be under the mask of wisdom. He turns sophister\nthen in his own defence, and is easily convinced, \u201cThat his conduct is\nnot altogether absurd or unreasonable.\u201d\n\nAnd thus, as I proposed to shew,\n\nII. In the next place, this fatal procrastination, which supports vice,\nis itself supported by a READY AND CONVENIENT SOPHISTRY.\n\nThe case of Felix will again illustrate this second observation; and shew\nus the whole process of that preverted ingenuity, by which the credulous\nmind is made easy under its delusion.\n\nHe thought it not sufficient to say to Paul; _Go thy way for this time_.\nThis abrupt dismission of the preacher was to be justified, in some sort,\nto himself, and to those who were witnesses of his consternation. He\ncovers it, then, with this pretence; _When I have a convenient season, I\nwill call for thee_.\n\nThe TIME, it seems, was not proper for his immediate conversion. To\nbecome a penitent just then; on the instant; to be surprised into a good\nlife, had the appearance of too much facility and inconsideration. He\nmust take a space to reflect on the grounds and reasons of what had been\noffered to him. He had, besides, other affairs, which pressed upon him at\nthis moment: or, if not, to deliberate on the matter, would render his\nconversion more solemn and effectual.\n\nThe PLACE, too, we may believe, was as little suited, as the time,\nto this business. \u201cWhat! in a public apartment of his palace! in the\npresence of Drusilla, whose tenderest interests were concerned in the\ncase, and whose delicacy required managing! before his pagan courtiers,\nand many, we may suppose, of his Jewish subjects, who would be equally\nscandalized at this precipitate conversion of their master and governor!\u201d\nThese, and other pretences of the like sort, without doubt, occurred to\nhim: and on the strength of these he concludes his procrastination to be\nfit, and decent, and justifiable, in a good degree, on the principles of\nvirtue and prudence.\n\n\u201cBut why, unhappy man (if one may presume to expostulate the case with\nthee) why this hasty and unweighed conclusion? Could there be any time\nmore convenient for thy conversion, or any place more suitable, if thou\nwert in earnest to be converted?\n\nWast thou ever so prepared for this change as now? Was thy mind ever so\nconvinced, or thy heart so affected? Didst thou ever hear and _tremble_\ntill this day, and wilt thou expect such a miracle a second time? Can thy\nbad life be reformed too soon, or can it need an afterthought to justify\nsuch reformation? Can any other business come in competition with this?\nand can it deserve the name of weakness and surprise to give way to the\npowerful workings of thy own conscience? In a doubtful case, it may be\nwell to deliberate: but can it be a secret even to thyself, that nothing\nis questionable here, but thy sincerity?\n\nFor what, let me ask, is that _convenient season_, which flatters thy\npresent irresolution? Wilt thou find such a monitor, as Paul, in thy\ndependants? Will thy tax-gatherers preach _righteousness_ to thee, and\nthy centurions, _temperance_? or, thy philosophers (if, perhaps, thou\nhast of these about thee, to grace thy provincial pomp) will they reason\nwith thee, on a _judgment to come_?\n\nBut the PLACE is unfit; and thou wilt send for Paul to confer in private\nwith thee.\n\nWast thou then afraid to expose thy honour by this step? And did it seem\ntoo much to give to God and truth, the glory of thy conversion? True\npenitence knows nothing of these punctilios. The example had edified\nthy unbelieving court; and might have had its effect on the insensible\nDrusilla. Thy injustice and incontinence had been open to all men. Was it\nnot fit thou shouldst atone for this scandal by as public a reformation?\nYet still thy pretence is, _a convenient season_! As if the first\nseason, that offers for renouncing a bad life, were not always the most\nconvenient.\u201d\n\nBut I continue this address to the Roman governor too long, if you\nconsider me as directing it to him only. Let me profess, then, that by\nFelix I mean every sinner at this day, who procrastinates in the affair\nof his salvation, and would colour that procrastination by a still more\ncontemptible sophistry. For, let us be ingenuous. This miserable Pagan,\nafter all, had something to say for himself. This was, probably, the\nonly time that repentance had ever been preached to him. He still,\nperhaps, was acquainted with little more than the name of Jesus: for his\nteacher, as we have seen, insisted chiefly on the great truths of natural\nreligion. If he then scrupled to take the benefit of this first and\nimperfect lecture, there is some allowance to be made for his folly. But\nwhat shall we say of those who possess every possible advantage of light\nand knowledge, who have grown up in the profession of Christianity, and\nare not now to learn either its duties or terrors? If such as these have\nsinned themselves into the condition of Felix, and yet resist the calls\nof grace, the commands of the Gospel, the exhortations of its ministers,\nthe admonitions of their own conscience, all of them concurring to\npress upon them an immediate repentance; if there be among us such\nprocrastinators as these, what topics of defence are there by which they\ncan hope to excuse, or so much as palliate, their prodigious infatuation?\n\n\u201cShall we say for them, or will they say for themselves, that they are\nyoung and healthy? that they have time enough before them, in which\nto grow wise at their leisure? that they wait till the boisterous\npassions have been calmed by reason and experience? that they expect _a\nconvenient season_ for repentance, in declining life, and the languor of\nold age? or that they shall find it, as others have done, on the bed of\nsickness, or on the bed of death?\u201d\n\nI have never heard that Christians have any better reasons than these for\ndelaying repentance: and, if they have not, though the sophistry of Felix\ndeserved to be laid open, the respect I owe to those who now hear me,\nwill not permit me to imagine that such sophistry as this, can want to be\nexposed.\n\nIt will be to better purpose to set before you,\n\nIII. In the last place, the issue of this too natural alliance between\nprocrastination and vice, in a FINAL IMPENITENCE; of which the case of\nFelix, again, affords us a striking example.\n\n_When I have a convenient season_, says he to Paul, _I will call for\nthee_. This season came, and Paul attended; to what effect, we shall now\nunderstand.\n\nWhen Felix dismissed him from his presence, he insinuated, nay perhaps\nthought, that he should have a disposition hereafter to profit by his\nreligious instructions. But time and bad company quieted his fears: and\na favourite vice inspired other motives for the interview, than those of\nreligion. _For he hoped_, says the historian, _that money should have\nbeen given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for\nhim the oftener, and communed with him_.\n\nThe case, we see, is well altered. He _trembled_ before at Paul\u2019s charge\nagainst him of rapine and extortion: he would now exercise these very\nvices on Paul himself. Such was the fruit of that _convenient season_,\nwhich was to have teemed with better things!\n\nBut this is not all: _For, after two years Portius Festus came into\nFelix\u2019s room; and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul\nbound_.\n\nFelix then had his preacher within call for _two whole years_: time\nsufficient, one would think, to afford the opportunity of many a lecture\n_concerning the faith of Christ_. Yet, though he communed with Paul\noft, it does not appear that his conferences with him turned on this\nsubject. What he wanted to draw from him was, not truth, but money; and,\nwhen this hope failed, he was little concerned about the rest. Nay, the\nimpression which Paul had made upon him was so entirely effaced, that he\nleft an innocent man _in bonds_, for the sake of _doing a pleasure to\nthe Jews_. But he had his reason still for this unwonted courtesy. For\ntheir complaints were ready to follow him (as indeed they did) to the\nthrone of C\u00e6sar; whither he went, at last, unrepentant and unreformed, to\nencounter, as he could, the rigors of imperial justice; just as so many\nothers, by the like misuse of time and opportunity, expose themselves to\nall the terrors of divine.\n\nNot but there is yet this advantage in the parallel on the side of\n_Felix_. He neglected to use the space of _two years_, which was\nmercifully allowed him for the season of reformation: but how many\nChristians omit this work, not for _two_ only, but for twenty, forty\nyears; nay, for the whole extent of a long life; and never find a\n_convenient season_ for doing the only thing, which it greatly concerns\nthem to do, although with the astonishing delusion of always intending it.\n\nTo conclude: We have seen that procrastination serves the ends of vice;\nand that vice, in return, is but too successful in pleading the cause of\nprocrastination: leaving between them this salutary lesson to mankind,\n\u201cThat he who seriously intends to repent to-morrow, should in all reason\nbegin to-day; _to-day_, as the Apostle admonishes, _while it is called\nto-day, lest the heart_, in the mean time, _be hardened through the\ndeceitfulness of sin_[5].\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXX.\n\nPREACHED DECEMBER 19, 1773.\n\n1 JOHN v. 11.\n\n_And this is the record that God hath given to us, eternal life; and_\nTHIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON.\n\n\nWe are indebted to the Gospel for the knowledge and hope we have of\neternal life; this important doctrine having, _first_, been delivered by\nJesus Christ, and _only_ by him, on any proper grounds of authority. This\nthen is the _record_, or the substance of what the Gospel _testifies_ and\naffirms, _That God hath given to us eternal life: and this life_, adds\nthe Apostle, IS IN HIS SON: that is, he _procured_ this blessing for us;\nhe is not only the teacher, but the _author_ of eternal life.\n\nThis last is a distinct and very momentous consideration. Reason might\nseem to have some part in discovering, or at least in confirming, the\ndoctrine itself: but the _manner_ of conveying the inestimable gift\nof eternal life, whether _immediately_ from the giver of it, or by\nthe _mediation_ of some other, this is a matter of pure revelation;\nand reason hath nothing more to do in the case, than to see that the\nrevelation is, indeed, made, and then with all humility to acquiesce in\nit.\n\nBeing, then, to treat this sublime subject, _the redemption of mankind\nthrough Christ_, I shall do it simply in the _terms_ of scripture, or at\nleast with a scrupulous regard to the plain and obvious _sense_ of them.\nThe text says, _eternal life is in the Son of God_; and my discourse must\nbe merely a _scriptural comment_ on this declaration.\n\nNow, the scripture teaches, that immortality was originally, and from the\nbeginning, the free gift of God to man, on the condition of his obeying\na certain law, or command, prescribed to him: whether that command be\ninterpreted _literally_, of not eating the fruit of the forbidden tree\nin paradise, as we read in the second and third chapters of Genesis; or\n_allegorically_, of some other prohibition, expressed agreeably to the\noriental genius, in these terms. This diversity of interpretation makes\nno difference in the case: whatever the test of man\u2019s disobedience was,\nthe will of the law-giver is clearly announced: If thou art guilty of\ndisobedience, _thou shalt surely die_[6].\n\nObedience, then, had the promise of _continued_ life; the penalty\nthreatened to disobedience, was _death_: which was only saying, that the\ngift freely bestowed on a certain condition (and surely what man had no\nright to demand, might be offered on what terms the giver pleased) should\nbe withdrawn on the breach of it. The loss, indeed, was immense; but\nto the loser no wrong was done: and of him who recalled the free gift,\nconditionally bestowed, and justly forfeited, no complaint, in reason,\ncan be made.\n\nBut to what purpose, some will ask, to give that with one hand, which was\npresently to be withdrawn by the other? for the best reason, no doubt,\nwhether conceivable by us, or not. However, the sad event was certainly\nforeseen: and, what is more, such provision was made against it, as to\ninfinite wisdom and goodness seemed meet.\n\nBy contemplating the gradual steps of Providence, as we are able to trace\nthem in the revelation itself, we understand, that it was in the eternal\npurpose of the divine Governor to restore life to fallen and mortal man,\nas _freely_ as it had been at first bestowed, and on _terms_ still more\nadvantageous him. But _the ways of heaven are not as our ways_, nor to\nbe regulated by our impatient wishes, or expectations. What man, in a\nmoment, had wantonly thrown away, he was to recover once more; but in\nGod\u2019s good time; not instantly, but after a long succession of ages, and\nsuch a state of intermediate discipline and preparation, as might best\nserve to introduce the intended blessing with effect.\n\nMan, then was to be reinstated in his forfeited inheritance: and the\n_promise_ was made, though purposely in obscure terms, from the moment\nthe forfeiture was incurred. In process of time, it was less, and still\nless obscurely signified; yet so as that the full discovery of what was\nintended, and, still more, the execution of it, was long deferred.\n\nAt length, Jesus Christ came into the world to fulfill and to declare\nthe whole will of God on this interesting subject: and from him, and\nfrom those commissioned by him, we learn what the wisest men, and even\n_angels_, _had desired to look into_, and could at most discern but\nimperfectly through the types and shadows of the patriarchal and Mosaic\ndispensations.\n\nThe great mystery, now unveiled, was briefly this: that God of his\ninfinite goodness had, indeed, from the foundation of the world, purposed\nthe restoration of eternal life to his unworthy creature, man; but that\nin his wisdom he saw fit to confer this unmerited blessing in a way, that\nshould at once secure the honour of his government; and, if any thing\ncould secure it, the future obedience and happiness of his creature:\nthat he would only confer this mighty privilege at the instance, as\nit were, and for the sake of a transcendantly divine person, his only\nbegotten Son, the second person in the glorious Trinity, as we now style\nhim: that this divine person; of his own free will co-operating with the\n_eternal purpose_[7] of the all-gracious Father, should descend from\nHeaven; should become incarnate; should as man, converge with men, and\ninstruct them by his heavenly doctrine; should taste deeply of all their\nsorrows and infirmities (_sin only excepted_); should even pour out his\nblood unto death, and by that blood should wash away the stain of guilt;\nand, on the condition of _faith_ in his name, operating, as of course\nit must do, by a sincere obedience to his authority, should admit us,\nonce more, to the possession of eternal happiness; of which, finally,\nwe have a _lively_ and certain hope, in that he who had laid down his\nlife, had power to take it again, as was declared to all the world by his\nresurrection from the dead[8].\n\nIn this awfully stupendous manner (at which reason stands aghast, and\nfaith herself is half confounded) was the Grace of God to man, at length,\nmanifested: and thus it is, when we come a little to unfold the _record_,\nor testimony of the Gospel, that _God hath given to as eternal life_; and\nthat _this life is in his Son_.\n\nCurious men have perplexed themselves and others by inquiring into the\nnature of this astonishing scheme, and have seemed half inclined not to\naccept so _great salvation_, till they could reconcile it to their ideas\nof philosophy. Hence those endless altercations concerning _merit,\nsatisfaction, imputed sin, and vicarious punishment_; in which it is\nhard to say, whether more subtlety has been shewn, or more perverseness;\nmore ingenuity, or presumption. If most of these questions were well\nexamined, it would appear, perhaps, that they are mere verbal disputes,\nand as frivolous as they are contentious. But, be the difference between\nthe parties nominal or real, this we are sure of, without taking part in\nthe controversy, that the scriptures speak of the _death_ of Christ, as\na _ransom for many_[9]; _the price of our redemption_[10]; _a sacrifice\nfor us_[11]; _a propitiation for the sins of the whole world_[12]: that\nthey speak of Christ himself, _as dying for us_[13], _as bearing our sins\nin his own body on the tree_[14]; as _suffering for sins, the just for\nthe unjust_[15]; as _tasting death for every man_[16]; _as giving himself\nfor us, an offering and sacrifice to God_[17]; as _justifying us by his\nblood_[18]; and _redeeming us by the price of it_[19]: with a multitude\nof other passages to the same purpose. Now let men use what art they\nwill in torturing such expressions as these; they will hardly prevent\nour seeing what the plain doctrine of scripture is, \u201cThat it pleased\nGod to give us eternal life only _in his Son_; and in his Son _only_ as\nsuffering and dying for us.\u201d\n\nBut in this consideration the whole mystery consists; how to be fully\ncleared up to our reason, men may dispute if they will, and they will\ndispute the rather, because the subject is out of their sphere, and\nbeyond their comprehension. Whether God _could_ accept such a sacrifice\nfor sin as the death of his own Son, many have presumptuously asked.\nWhether he _could not_ have given life to man, in another way, some have\nmore modestly doubted: but the issue of all this arrogant or needless\ncuriosity, is but the discovery of their own weakness, on the one hand,\nand the confession of this stupendous truth, on the other; That God\ndid not see fit to bestow eternal salvation on mankind, but in his own\nappointed way, through Christ Jesus.\n\nIn this momentous truth, then, enough for us to know, let us humbly\nacquiesce, and leave to others the vanity of disputing the grounds of it.\n\nBut, though the reasons of this dispensation be inscrutable to us, the\nmeasure of its _influence_, some think, they have the means to discover.\nFor it seems to follow from St. Paul\u2019s assertion, that, _as in Adam all\ndied, so in Christ shall all be made alive_[20]; and from the idea given\nus of the Redeemer, as of _the lamb slain from the foundation of the\nworld_[21]; that the benefits of Christ\u2019s death extend to all men, of all\ntimes, and are, in the proper sense of the word, _universal_. Only it is\nto be remembered, that, if all men have an interest in Christ, whether\nthey know it or not, _we_ who do know what our interest in him is, have\ninfinitely the advantage of them, and are inexcusable, if we reject it.\n\nThus far then we go upon safe grounds, and affirm without hesitation,\nthat _God_, through his mercies in Christ Jesus, _is the Saviour of all\nmen_, but _especially of them that believe_[22].\n\nAnother consideration, and of the utmost moment, is yet behind. Though\neternal life be now again bestowed on mankind, this gift is not one and\nthe same thing to all, but is differently modified according to the\ndifferent conduct of those to whom it is given. All shall _live_; but\nwhether to happiness, or misery, and to what degree of _either_, will\ndepend on the use of those advantages, whether of nature or grace, which\nevery one enjoys. Not, that any degree of eternal happiness is, or can\nbe strictly due to any man, but that the several degrees of it will be\n_proportioned_ to our respective moral and religious qualifications. To\nhave done otherwise, would have been to confound the order of things,\nand to appoint a scheme of salvation, which must utterly extinguish all\nvirtuous industry among men. Hence, we are told, that the righteous shall\nshine out in different degrees of happiness, _as one star differeth from\nanother star in glory_[23].\n\nIn like manner, they who shall be found worthy, not of happiness, but\nmisery, will be sentenced to several allotments of it, by the same equal\nrule.\n\nIt may seem, perhaps, that, as our best works could not _merit_ eternal\nlife in happiness, so our worst cannot _deserve_ eternal life in misery.\nBut let us take care how we push our inquiries into this aweful subject.\nIn rewarding obedience, the _divine goodness_ is chiefly displayed; and\nwho shall presume to set bounds to it? But, in punishing disobedience,\nthe _divine Wisdom_, of which we conceive much more imperfectly, is\nmainly concerned: and what examples of severity in the punishment of\nincorrigibly impenitent offenders, after such means as have been devised\nto reclaim them, and for the support of his moral government over more\nworlds than we have any idea of, this attribute may demand, we shall do\nwell, with all submission and modesty, to leave unexplored.\n\nStill, what is just, that is, what is right and fit, on the whole,\nundoubtedly take place: but we _are_ not, we _cannot_, be competent\njudges of what is fit and right in this instance. It will be safest to\nrely, without further inquiry, on the general declaration of him, who\nwas not only our Redeemer, but shall one day be our merciful judge:\n_These_, says he, [that is, the wicked] _shall go away into everlasting\npunishment: but the righteous into life eternal_[24].\n\nWhat remains on this subject, is only to admonish you of those\n_relations_, in which we stand towards the Author of our salvation, and\nthe correspondent _duties_ they impose upon us. I can but just point out\nthese _relations_ and _duties_: though they deserve to be inculcated (as,\nin fact, they have been, by the sacred writers) with all the force of\neloquent persuasion, that words can give.\n\nWith regard, to the supreme cause of all things, who is of himself only\nthe source, and principle of deity, and the original author of our\nsalvation, God, thus understood, is graciously pleased to present himself\nto us in the Gospel, under the idea of THE FATHER, and to consider us in\nthe tender relation of _sons_. We owe him, therefore, all possible filial\nlove and reverence, and must so conceive of his part in the mystery of\nour redemption, as to refer all the fruits of it, ultimately, _to the\nglory of God the Father_[25].\n\nIn subordination to the _Father_, HE in whom we have eternal life, is\nour _friend_[26], and therefore entitled to our warmest love: he is our\ngreatest _benefactor_[27], and therefore claims our utmost gratitude:\nhe is our only _master_[28], and of course, must be followed with all\nobservance: he is our _redeemer_, and _sole mediator between God and\nman_[29]; therefore he challenges an implicit, an exclusive trust and\nconfidence from us: he is the appointed _judge_ of the world[30];\ntherefore to be regarded with the humblest fear and veneration: lastly,\nhe is _the only begotten Son of God_[31], nay _our Lord and our God_[32];\nto whom therefore we are to pay transcendant honour, so as _to honour,\nthe Son even as we honour the Father_[33].\n\nThese are some, the chief of those duties, which, as Christians, we are\nbound to perform towards the Author of our salvation. The _relations_\nfrom which they spring, could not be discovered by the light of nature;\nbut, when made known to us by revelation, they require as certainly, and\nas reasonably, the several _duties_ which correspond to them, as the\n_relations_ in which we stand to God and man, as discoverable by nature\nonly, require their respective _duties_.\n\nYou see, then, the sphere of a Christian\u2019s duty is much enlarged beyond\nthat of the natural man: and not in these instances only, for the gospel\nhas made known another divine _person_, (so we are obliged to speak)\n_the holy Spirit of God_, who stands in a distinct relation to us; and\nto whom, therefore, his proper and peculiar honour is due. But of this\ndivine person in the glorious Trinity, I shall find another occasion to\nlay before you, at large, what the scriptures have brought to light.\n\nFor the present, it may suffice to have put you in mind of what we are\ntaught concerning _the grace of God in his Son Jesus Christ_; to the end\nthat, religiously observing all the duties which this revealed doctrine\nrequires of us, we may fully correspond to the gracious intentions of the\nrevealer, by having _our fruit unto holiness_; and _the end, everlasting\nlife. For the wages of sin_ (be it ever remembered) _is death: but\neternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord[34]: To\nwhom be all praise, thanksgiving, and honour, now and for evermore.\nAmen._\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXI.\n\nPREACHED JUNE 12, 1774.\n\nGAL. vi. 8.\n\n_He that soweth to the spirit, shall_ OF THE SPIRIT REAP LIFE EVERLASTING.\n\n\nWithout staying to point out the immediate occasion of these words, or\nto enumerate and define the several senses of the word _spirit_, in\nsacred scripture, it is sufficient to my present purpose to observe,\nthat the text affirms _a general and fundamental truth of the Gospel_,\nmore clearly and particularly explained elsewhere. It is this: That he\nwho in this life conducts himself according to the rules and admonitions\nof God\u2019s holy spirit, which the Apostle calls, _sowing to the spirit_,\nshall, through the influence of the same spirit, obtain, that is, in the\nApostle\u2019s figurative style, _shall reap, life everlasting_.\n\nBut, what! you will say, everlasting life is the _gift of God through\nChrist_: how is it then that we receive this gift at the hands of\nanother, of _God\u2019s holy spirit_?\n\nTo resolve this difficulty, and to open to you at the same time the\nChristian doctrine of grace, together with the concern which we have in\nit, I shall consider,\n\nI. In what _sense_ we are to understand the assertion, _That everlasting\nlife is of the spirit_.\n\nII. In what _way_ this blessing is conferred upon us; under which head I\nshall have occasion to set forth the several _offices and operations_ of\nthe holy Spirit.\n\nIII. Lastly, what _returns of duty_, as corresponding to these _offices_\nof the Spirit, and as resulting from the _relations_ in which we stand\ntowards him, are, in consequence of this revelation, reasonably required\nof us.\n\nI. To understand in what _sense_ the scriptures assert _everlasting\nlife to be of the spirit_, it will be necessary to form to ourselves a\ndistinct idea of the divine \u0153conomy in the whole work of our redemption;\nwhich (to sum up briefly what is revealed to us) appears to have been\nconducted in the following manner.\n\nGod the Father of his mere grace, purposed and _willed_[35], from all\neternity, the restoration of _life_ to man, after his forfeiture of it by\ndisobedience: but he saw fit to make our _title_ to this free gift depend\non the death and sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ: and, lastly, to give\nthe _actual possession_ of it only through the ministration of his holy\nSpirit.\n\nThe whole of this process is full of wonder; but there is no\ncontradiction, or inconsistency in its several parts.\n\nHowever, to open the \u0153conomy of this dispensation a little more\ndistinctly, it is to be observed, that eternal life may be taken in\ntwo senses. It may either imply _a mere state of_ ENDLESS EXISTENCE;\nand, in this sense, it is solely and properly the gift of God through\nChrist; _for as in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be made\nalive_[36]: Or, it may mean, what it always does mean in those passages\nof scripture, where it is magnified so much, _a state of_ HAPPINESS, in\nthat existence; and then only a capacity of being put into this state is\nprocured for us by the Redeemer. But this capacity, this _grace of God_,\nmay be _frustrated by us_[37], may even turn against is, if we be not\nduly prepared to enjoy that _happiness_ of which we are made capable; and\nsuch _preparation_, is the proper distinctive work of God\u2019s holy spirit.\n\nFurther, to see the necessity, the importance at least, of such\npreparation, we are to reflect, that, by the fall of man, not only life\nwas forfeited, but the powers of his mind were weakened. Transgression\nhad clouded his understanding, and perverted his will. He neither saw his\nduty so clearly as before, nor was disposed to perform it so vigorously.\nAnd this depravation of his faculties, we easily conceive, _might_, as\nan original taint, be transmitted to his posterity; nay, we certainly\nfeel that it _is_ so: yet, without any imputation on the author of our\nbeing, who might have placed us in this disadvantageous state, if he\nhad pleased, from the beginning; and to whom we are accountable for the\nright use of the advantages we have, not of those we have not. Still, the\npurity of God\u2019s nature might require what his wisdom has decreed, that\n_without holiness no man shall see the Lord_[38], and that Jesus should\nbe _the author of eternal salvation to those_ only, who, in a higher\ndegree than our fallen nature of itself permits, _obey him_[39]. And this\nchange in our moral condition from bad to good, from a propensity to\nevil to a love of righteousness, is called in scripture, _a renewing of\nour minds_, _a new creation_, _a new man_; in opposition to the former\nso different state of our minds, which is called _the old man corrupted\naccording to the deceitful lusts_[40].\n\nFor the _change_ itself, it is represented in scripture as proceeding,\nnot from the virtue of our own minds, but from the influence of the Holy\nGhost upon them[41]: and when it has taken place in us, then, and not\ntill then, is _our election sure_, and we are _made heirs according to\nthe hope of eternal life_[42].\n\nThis extraordinary provision for restoring man to the image of God,\nto _the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true\nholiness_[43], is what reason could not have hoped for, but, when made\nknown by revelation, seems to have been expedient, may be conceived to\nhave been even necessary, and is clearly an expression of the divine\ngoodness, which, though it fill our minds very justly with wonder, well\nas gratitude, none of our natural notions contradict.\n\nWe see, then, in general, _how_ the new man receives the gift of eternal\nlife from the spirit. Let us now consider more particularly,\n\nII. In the second place, in what _way_ this new creation is carried on\nand perfected in us. And here we shall find all the marks of that wisdom\nand fitness, which are discernable in the thing itself.\n\n_For_ we are _renewed in the spirit of our minds_[44], _by the teaching\nof the spirit of truth_[45], _through sanctification of the spirit_[46],\nand _comfort of the Holy Ghost_[47]: that is, we have a new and better\nturn given to our minds, by the light derived into them from the spirit;\nby the good thoughts and purposes which he excites in them; and by the\njoy and consolation with which he rewards our endeavours to profit by\nthe assistance thus graciously afforded to us.\n\nThat we very much want these helps and encouragements, we _all_ know:\nthat we are very much indebted to them, we _Christians_ believe: and that\nthey are not the less real, because, perhaps, not distinguishable from\nthe workings of our own minds, now that revelation assures us of the\nfact, we have no scruple to affirm.\n\nTo this divine Spirit, then, _the spirit of the Father_[48], and _the\nspirit of the Son_[49], as he is equally styled, because proceeding\nfrom both; to this spirit, I say, _enlightening_ our understandings,\n_purifying_ our wills, and _confirming_ our faith, we must impute all\nthat is good in us, all that proficiency in _true holiness_ which\nqualifies us for the enjoyment of heaven: and through this discipline it\nis, that they _who sow to the spirit_, are, in the end, enabled _of the\nspirit to reap everlasting life_.\n\nThese _three_ characters might be further opened and distinctly\nconsidered; and then it would appear, that all the revelations of\nGod\u2019s will, chiefly with regard to the redemption of man, made to the\npatriarchs of old, to the prophets under the law, to the Apostles of our\nLord, nay to our Lord himself, as _the man Christ Jesus_, and all the\nsecret illuminations of the faithful in all times, are to be regarded as\nso many emanations from the spirit of God, THE ENLIGHTENER: that at the\ngradual improvements of our virtue, all the graces which first descend\nupon our hearts, and then manifest themselves in every good word and\nwork, are the production of the same spirit, in his office of SANCTIFIER:\nand, lastly, that all the firmness and resolution we possess under\nevery trial in this world, all the foretaste we have of future favour\nand acceptance, all our joy and peace in believing, are the signs and\nproofs of the COMFORTER, speaking to us, and, according to our Saviour\u2019s\npromise, _abiding in us_.\n\nIt is very conceivable that all this diversity of operations may be\njustly and reasonably ascribed to the influence of the holy Spirit,\nwithout supposing that our own freedom is impeded or infringed. For\ninfluence is not compulsion; and we are every day induced by others to\ndo that which we should not have done of ourselves, without feeling\nor suspecting that the least violence is offered to our free-will.\n_A convincing truth_ clearly presented to us; _a virtuous thought_\nincidentally suggested; _a gleam of hope or gladness_, suddenly let in\nupon us; all this is no more than we frequently experience in the company\nof wise and good men, who yet would be much surprised, and would have\nreason to think themselves much injured, if we complained of any undue\ninfluence exerted by them. Yet thus it is, and thus only, that the holy\nspirit _constraineth us_: and the scriptures are so far from representing\nthis constraint under the idea of force, or physical necessity, that they\nspeak of it as the perfection of moral freedom: _Where the spirit of the\nLord is_, says the Apostle, _there is liberty_[50].\n\nHaving, therefore, seen in _what sense_ it is affirmed that the spirit\n_giveth_ life; and in _what way_, consistently with the free use of our\nfaculties, he dispenses this gift, and exercises a variety of offices\ntowards us; it remains,\n\nIII. In the last place, to see what _returns of duty_, as corresponding\nto the several characters of the holy Spirit, and resulting from the\nrelations in which we stand to him, are required on our part; in other\nwords, what we are to do, before we can hope to be _transformed by the\nrenewing of our minds_, under the influence of the holy Spirit.\n\nOne previous indispensable condition of our obtaining that influence\nseems to be, that we ASK _it_, that is, put up our petitions to God for\nit: a consideration, which, while it shews the utility, the necessity of\nprayer, sufficiently accounts, I doubt, to many of us, for the little\nor no effect which, as we pretend and sometimes lament, this renovating\npower of the spirit has upon us.\n\nThis duty of prayer being supposed; with regard to the holy spirit\nhimself, _in general_, all the reverence, honour, worship, which his\ndivine nature exacts from us, and all the love and gratitude which his\ngracious concurrence with the Father and the Son, in the great work of\nour redemption, so eminently deserves, are to be religiously paid to him.\n\nMore _particularly_, we are to consider, that to the several characters\nor offices, sustained by this divine person, and exercised towards us,\nseveral duties respectively correspond; which indeed are obvious enough,\nbut must just be pointed out.\n\n1. If a ray of light break in upon us, if a new degree of knowledge be\nimparted to us, if we see the truth of the gospel more clearly in any\nrespect than before we had done, we cannot mistake in ascribing this\nadditional information or conviction (which comes very frequently we\nknow not how, and when the general bent of our thoughts, perhaps, lies\nanother way) to the illuminating spirit within us; and we are to see to\nwhat further purpose that illumination may serve, and how far it may go\ntowards dissipating the darkness of our minds in other instances.\n\n2. If we feel (as at times we all of us do) a vicious inclination\nchecked, a virtuous purpose encouraged, a moral or a pious sentiment\nsuggested, these secret motions are, nay, must be, from the holy Spirit;\nand our duty is to entertain and to improve them.\n\n3. Or, again, if we perceive our devotions to be quickened, our hopes\nenlivened, our faith fortified, though the present state of our temper\nor constitution may be instrumental in producing these effects, yet, if\nthey go no father than scripture warrants, and right reason allows, we\nshall not mistake (having the express promise of our Lord and Master) in\nascribing these consolations of peace and joy to the _Comforter_; we may\nregard them as _the earnest and pledge of the spirit in our hearts_[51]:\nand then, our part is so to cherish and use them, as to _go on from\nstrength to strength_[52], till we arrive at perfection.\n\nYou see there is enough for us to do, though _the spirit strive with our\nspirit_[53], and in such sort that we derive the power _to will and to\ndo_[54] what we ought, ultimately from him.\n\nI know that this, and other things, which on the authority of scripture,\nI have delivered on the present subject, will appear strange to natural\nreason. But so that scripture has prepared us to expect they would do.\n_For the natural man_, says the Apostle, _receiveth not the things of\nthe spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him_[55]. And to the\nsame purpose our divine Master himself, speaking _of the spirit of truth;\nwhom_, says he, _the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not,\nneither knoweth him: but ye_, addressing himself to his disciples [that\nis, to men, who walk by _faith_, and not by sight] _ye know him, for he\ndwelleth with you, and shall be in you_.\n\nOn this assurance, then, we may reasonably believe what, by reason,\nwe cannot understand. And the substance of what we are to believe on\nthis whole subject, is contained in a single text of St. Peter, where\nthe _three_ divine persons, yet ineffably _one_ God, \u201c_the Trinity in\nunity_[56],\u201d whom we adore, and their respective offices, are accurately\ndistinguished. For in the opening of his first epistle, he pronounces the\nChristians, to whom he writes, ELECT, that is, entitled to salvation,\n_according to the foreknowledge_, or pre-determination[57], _of God the\nfather; through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience; and\nsprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_.\n\nIn these memorable words, we have a brief, yet clear epitome of our whole\nfaith. And thus at length you see that, though eternal life be _the gift\nof_ GOD _in his_ SON, it is only ensured, and finally conveyed to us, by\nthe ministry of _his_ HOLY SPIRIT: to which blessed TRINITY, therefore,\nbe all honour, and praise, and adoration, now and for ever! AMEN.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXII.\n\nPREACHED JUNE 19, 1774.\n\n2 COR. vii. 1.\n\n_Having therefore these promises (dearly beloved) let us cleanse\nourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in\nthe fear of God._\n\n\nOur discourses from this place turning very much, as they ought to do,\non the great Christian doctrine of salvation, that is, of _eternal\nlife_, considered as the gift of God to mortal and sinful man, through\nthe redemption of his Son, and the sanctification of his holy Spirit, it\nwould be a strange neglect in us, if we did not take care to remind our\nhearers of the effect which that doctrine ought to have upon them.\n\nThis duty I mean now to discharge towards you: and I cannot do it\nmore properly than by enforcing that advice which St. Paul gave the\nCorinthians, as the result of a long and eloquent discourse to them on\nthe same subject. _Having_ THEREFORE (says he) these promises [i. e. the\npromise of _eternal life_, and of _acceptance through Christ_, so as to\nbecome _the people of God_, nay _the sons of God_, with other assurances\nof the like sort[58], interspersed in the two preceding chapters, _Having\nthese promises_] _let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh\nand spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God_.\n\nThe inference, you see, is direct to our purpose: and common ingenuity,\nif nothing else, might well engage us, in return for such great and\nprecious promises, to draw the same conclusion for ourselves. But, when\nwe further consider that these promises are conditional, and made only\nto those who obey the giver of them[59], interest, as well as gratitude,\nwill oblige us to yield that obedience so expressly required of us.\n\nThis obedience is briefly summed up in the direction; _to cleanse\nourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit_, that is, to take\ncare, agreeably to the double obligation imposed upon us by the distinct\nparts of our constitution, that we consult the integrity both of our\nbodies and minds; and preserve them both from that defilement which each\nof them, according to its nature, is liable to contract in this state of\nmoral probation.\n\nI. With regard to the FLESH, the gross vices which defile that part of\nour frame, are so expressly condemned by the law of reason, as well\nas of the gospel, and are so repugnant to the inbred modesty of every\nman, especially, a such as have had their natural sense of decency\nquickened by a good education, that but to mention them in this place,\nI would hope, is quite sufficient. If I go farther, it shall only be to\nremind you of one thing, which I have explained at large on a former\noccasion[60], That Christianity hath added unspeakably to the worth and\ndignity of the human body, by considering it no longer as the store-house\nof impure lusts, but as the habitation, the _temple_ of the living God,\nto whose sole use it is now dedicated[61].\n\nThe turpitude, the dishonour, the impiety of desecrating this sanctuary\nof the holy Spirit by sordid, carnal excesses, is then apparent to every\nChristian.\n\nBut the vices of the SPIRIT do not always strike the attention so\nforcibly; though they be as real as those of the body, and sometimes\nmore fatal. The reason is, that the spiritual part of man does not lie\nso open to observation as the corporeal. The mind is not easily made an\nobject to itself; and, when it is, we have a strange power of seeing it\nin a false light, and of overlooking its blemishes, or of even mistaking\nthem for beauties. In short, _the filthiness of the spirit_ may be long\nunobserved, and therefore _uncleansed_, if it be not pointed out to us by\nsome friendly monitor, who is more practised in this mental inspection\nthan ourselves, or has less interest, however, to conceal our depravity\nfrom us.\n\nPermit me, then, to assume the charitable office of holding up to your\nview these _spiritual vices_; not all of every sort (for that would be\nendless) but the chief of those which tend more immediately to defeat the\ngracious _promises_ made to us in the gospel.\n\nII. I say nothing of that corruption which direct and positive infidelity\nstrikes through the soul, whether it be the infidelity of Atheism,\nor what is called Deism; because, on men who espouse either of these\nsystems, the promises of the gospel take no hold; and because it ought\nnot, cannot be supposed, that men of no religion, or of no faith, appear\nin these Christian assemblies. You will think me better employed in\npointing out such corruptions, as may not improbably adhere even to\nbelievers; though concealed from their own observation, it may be, or\ndisguised, at least, to themselves, under various pretences.\n\n1. The first of these that I shall mention is a sort of HALF-BELIEF,\nwhich floats in the mind, and, though it do not altogether renounce\nthe hopes of the Gospel, is far from reposing a firm trust in them.\nMany professed believers have, I doubt, this infirmity, this taint of\ninfidelity, still cleaving to them. They think Christianity an useful\ninstitution; nay, they think it not destitute of all divine authority.\nBut then they reduce this authority to just nothing, by allowing\nthemselves to put it as low as they can\u2014by taking great liberties in\nexplaining both its doctrines and precepts\u2014by admitting such parts\nof this revelation, as they believe themselves able to make out to\nthe satisfaction of their own minds, and by rejecting, at least by\nquestioning in some sort, whatever they cannot perfectly understand\u2014by\ntreating some things as incredible, others, as impracticable; one part\nof their religion as too mysterious, and another as too severe. \u201cThey\nbelieve, they say, what they can: but, after all, there are many strange\nthings in this religion; and the evidence for the truth of them is not\nso controuling, but that there is room for some degree of doubt and\nhesitation.\u201d\n\nAll this, perhaps, they do not say to others; nay, not to themselves,\nexcept when they are pressed by some conclusion from scripture, which\neither their prejudices, or their passions, make them very unwilling\nto admit; and then they take leave to be as sceptical as the occasion\nrequires.\n\nBut now from such a faith as this, no wholesome or permanent fruits can\nbe expected. It has no root in them; and the _promises_, that should feed\nand nourish it, have but a faint and feeble effect; just enough, perhaps,\nto keep their hopes from dying outright, but much too little to push\nthem into any vigorous efforts of obedience.\n\nThe way for such to _cleanse themselves_ from this pollution of spirit\n(for to the several defects, the proper remedy in each case shall, as\nwe go along, be subjoined) is, once for all, to examine the foundations\nof their religion; and, if they find them, on the whole, solid and\nsatisfactory, to rely upon them thenceforth with a confidence entire and\nunshaken. They should reflect, that every revealed doctrine, of whatever\nsort, as standing on the same ground of infallible truth, is equally to\nbe admitted. There is no compromising matters with their divine Master:\nthey must either quit his service, or follow him without reserve. And\nthis, upon the whole, they will find to be the manly and the reasonable\npart for them to take. To halt between two opinions so repugnant to\neach other, to embrace so interesting a thing as religion by halves, is\nneither for the credit of their courage, nor of their understanding.\n\nHaving then the _promise_ of eternal life, let them reckon upon that\npromise, like men who know its value, and do not mistrust on what ground\nit stands. If they are Christians at all, they cannot justify it even\nto themselves not to be Christians in good earnest. And thus will they\nhappily escape the disgrace of an _irresolved and indolent faith_; which\ninvolves them in much of the guilt, and in almost all the mischiefs, of\ninfidelity. But,\n\n2. There are those who have not a doubt about the truth of Christianity,\nand yet, through a certain LEVITY OF MIND, derive but little benefit from\ntheir conviction.\n\nThis spiritual vice is, perhaps, the commonest of all others; and, though\nit seems to have something prodigious in it, is easily accounted for from\nthe intoxication of health, youth, and high spirits; from the restless\npursuit of pleasure, which occupies one part of the world, and of\nbusiness, which distracts another; from a too passionate love of society\nin many; from feverish habits of dissipation in more; and from a fatal\nimpatience of solitude and recollection in almost all.\n\nBut, by whichsoever of these causes the vice of inconsideration, we\nhave now before us, is produced and nourished, it is of the most\nmalignant sort, and being ready to branch out into many others, should\nbe resolutely checked and suppressed. Though there be nothing directly\ncriminal in the pursuit which takes us from ourselves, it is always\ndangerous to lose sight of what we are, and whither we are going, and may\nbe fatal. For, not to believe, and not to call to mind what we believe,\nis nearly the same thing. And when a temptation meets us thus unprepared,\nit wants no assistance from infidelity, but is secure of prevailing by\nits own strength, under cover of our inattention.\n\nSuch, I doubt not, is the sad experience of thousands, every day; while\nyet the misjudging world, that part of it, especially, whose interest it\nis to suppose that all men are equally destitute of religious principles,\nrashly conclude that there is no faith, where there is so much folly.\n\u201cThese hypocrites, say they, are convicted of the same unbelief,\nwhich they perpetually object to us:\u201d Alas, no: they are convicted of\ninconsequence, only.\n\nNot that this consideration excuses their guilt: it even aggravates and\ninflames it. For, when _one thing_, only, _is needful_, and they know\nit to be so, not to retain a practical, an habitual sense of it, but to\nsuffer every trifle to mislead, every sudden gust of passion to drive\nthem from _the hope_ and end _of their calling_, argues an extreme\ndepravity of mind, and deserves a harsher name than we commonly give to\nthis conduct.\n\nHowever, soften it to ourselves, as we will, under any fashionable\ndenomination, the _spirit_ must be cured of this vice, or the _promises_\nof the Gospel are lost upon us. And the proper remedy is but one. We must\nresolve, at all events, to acquire the contrary habit of consideration.\nWe must meditate much and often on what we believe: we must force our\nminds to dwell upon it: we must converse more with ourselves, how bad\ncompany soever we take that to be, and less with the world, which so\neasily dissipates our thoughts, and oversets our best resolutions.\n\nIf we would but every day set apart a small portion of our time, were it\nbut a few minutes, to supplicate the grace of God, and to say seriously\nto ourselves; _I believe the promises, and I acknowledge the authority\nof the gospel_; (and less than this, who can think excusable in any man,\nwhatever his condition of life may be, that calls himself a Christian?)\nthis short and easy discipline, regularly pursued, and, on no pretence\nwhatever, intermitted, would presently effect the cure we so much want,\nand restore the sickly mind to its health and vigour.\n\n3. Still, there may be a general belief in the promises of the Gospel,\nand a good degree of attention to them, and yet men may be but little\nimpressed by what they thus believe and consider. This affection of the\nmind is sometimes experienced, but has hardly acquired a distinct name.\nLet us call it, if you please, a DEADNESS, or INSENSIBILITY OF HEART;\nwhich, so far as it proceeds from natural constitution, is a misfortune\nonly; but, when cherished or even neglected by us, it becomes a fault.\n\nThe danger of it lies here, lest by seeing with indifference the most\nimportant objects of our hopes and fears, we come by degrees to neglect\nor overlook them; to question, perhaps, the reality of them; or, to\nlose, however, the benefit which even a calm view of these objects, when\nfrequently set before the mind, must needs convey to us.\n\nThe rule in this case plainly is, To prescribe to ourselves such a\nregimen as is proper to correct this spiritual lethargy: that is, to\nstimulate the sluggish mind by the most poignant reflexions; to bring\nthe objects of our faith as near and close to us as we can; to paint them\nin the liveliest colours of the imagination, which, when touched itself,\neasily sets fire to the affections; and, above all, to keep our eye\nintently and steadily upon them.\n\nWe may see the utility of this regimen, in a case which is familiar to\nevery body.\n\nWhen we look forward to the end of life, it appears at a vast distance.\nThe many, or the few years, that lie before us, take up a great deal of\nroom in the mind, and present the idea of a long, and almost interminable\nduration. Hence the fatal security in which we most of us live, as\nconceiving that, when so much time is on our hands, we need not be\nsollicitous to make the most of it.\n\nBut that all this is a mere delusion, we may see by looking back on the\ntime that is already elapsed. We have lived in this world, twenty, forty,\nit may be, many more years: yet, in reflecting on this space, we find it\njust nothing: the several parts of it run together in the mind, and the\nfirst moment of our existence seems almost to touch upon the present.\nNow, by anticipating this experience, and applying it to the remaining\nperiod of our lives, we may satisfy ourselves, that the years to come\nwill pass away as rapidly, and, when gone, will appear as inconsiderable\nas the past; and the effect of this anticipation must be, to convince us,\nthat no part of this brief term is to be trifled with, or unimproved.\n\nThen, again, we have the power of imaging to ourselves, in a very lively\nmanner, the circumstances in which death surprises very many thoughtless\npersons every day; and what we should feel in their situation.\n\nLay then these two things together; make _the shortness of life_, and\n_the terrors of an unprepared death_, the frequent object of your\nmeditation; and see if the most callous mind will not presently be much\naffected by them.\n\n4. The fourth and last vice of the spirit, which I have time to mention\nto you, is rather, perhaps, to be accounted a complication of vices.\nBut what I mean is that unhappy turn of mind which prompts many persons\nto elude the effects of faith, reflexion, and even a lively sense, in\nmatters of religion, by certain tricks of SOPHISTRY, which they practise\non themselves. They believe, and they would gladly obtain, the promises\nof the gospel, but repentance, they suppose, will supply the place of\nuniform obedience: they will repent, but not yet; there is time enough,\nand fitter for that purpose, when passion cools, and the heat of life is\nover: or, they fancy to themselves an inexhaustible fund of goodness in\ntheir religion; the terms of it may not be rigidly insisted upon; the\npromises may not be so conditional as they seem to be; and the threats,\nwithout doubt, will not be punctually executed. At the worst, there is\nno need to despair of mercy, considering the frailty of man, and the\ninfinite merits of the Redeemer.\n\nSuch reasonings as these argue a depraved mind, and tend, further, to\ndeprave it. But your good sense prevents me in the confutation of them.\nI would only observe, that this vice is, as I said, a complicated one:\nfor, together with the unfairness and disingenuity (which belongs to all\nsophistry, as such) we have here united (what is too common in religious\nsophistry) a great deal of unwarrantable presumption.\n\nThe remedy in the case is, To cultivate in ourselves a modest and\ningenuous love of truth; an awful reverence of the revealed word, and\nthat simplicity of heart which excludes all artifice and refinement.\n\nFrom these so pernicious vices of the spirit, then, that is, from a\n_fluctuating faith_, an _inconsiderate levity_, an _inapprehensive\ndeadness of heart_, and a _perverse sophistical abuse of the\nunderstanding_, let us emancipate ourselves by a firm, attentive,\nvigorous, and ingenuous dependance on the promises of the gospel; from\nthese defilements, I say, in particular (having shaken off the other\nmore sordid corruptions of the _flesh and spirit_) let us anxiously\n_cleanse_ our minds, with the view of _perfecting holiness_, as the text\nadmonishes, IN THE FEAR OF GOD.\n\nThis last clause is by no means an insignificant one; as ye will see\nby recollecting, that the true temper of a Christian is, hope mixed\nwith fear; _hope_, to animate his courage, and _fear_, to quicken his\nattention. For, unless this principle of fear, not a servile, but filial\nfear, inform the soul and invigorate its functions, we shall be far from\nPERFECTING HOLINESS; we shall at best exhibit in our lives but some\nbroken, detached, incoherent parcels of it. A steady, uniform piety, such\nas begets that _hope, which maketh not ashamed_[62], is only kept up by\na constant watchfulness and circumspection; which our probationary state\nplainly demands, and which nothing but _the fear of God_ effectually\nsecures.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXIII.\n\nPREACHED APRIL 8, 1776.\n\n1 TIM. iii. 16.\n\n_Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest\nin the flesh; justified in the spirit; seen of Angels; preached to the\nGentiles; believed on in the world; received up into glory._\n\n\nThe inspired writers, sometimes, dilate on the articles of the Christian\nreligion; pursue them separately, and at length, for the fuller and more\ndistinct information of the faithful. Sometimes, again, they give them to\nus, as it were, in clusters: they accumulate their awful doctrines and\ndiscoveries, to strike and astonish the mind with their united force.\n\nThis _last_ is the method of the text, which I shall a little open and\nexplain; but so as to conform myself to the Apostle\u2019s purpose in giving a\nbrief collective view of Christianity, that, the whole of it being seen\ntogether, we may be the more sensibly affected by it.\n\n1. This _great mystery of godliness_ opens with\u2014GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.\n\nWhen the scheme of man\u2019s redemption was laid, it was not thought fit\nthat an Apostle, a prophet, a man like ourselves, no nor an Angel or\nArchangel, should be the instrument of it; but that the _word of God_,\nthe _Son of God_, nay _God_ himself (as he is here and elsewhere[63]\ncalled) should take this momentous office upon him: that heaven should\nstoop to earth, and that the divine nature should condescend to leave the\nmansions of glory, inshrine itself in a fleshly tabernacle, should be\n_made man_, should _dwell among us_, and _die for us_.\n\nIf you ask, why may not a man, or angel, have sufficed to execute this\npurpose of man\u2019s salvation; or, if only this divine person was equal\nto it, why he did not rather assume a glorified, than our mortal body;\nwhy it was necessary for him to inherit all our infirmities (sin only\nexcepted,) and yet be conceived, in so extraordinary a manner of the holy\nSpirit; nay, and why he should be so conceived, and born of a _virgin_\n(a miracle of that peculiar sort as scarce seems capable of proof, and,\nin fact, is only proved indirectly by the subsequent life and character\nand history of this divine person): If you ask these, and a hundred\nother such questions, I answer readily and frankly, _I know not_: But\nthen consider, that _my_ ignorance, that is, any man\u2019s ignorance, of\nthe reasons why these things were done, is no argument, not so much as\na presumption against there being reasons, nay, and the best reasons,\nfor so mysterious a dispensation. Consider, too, that these mysteries no\nway contradict any clear principle of your own reason: all that appears\nis, that you should not have expected, previously to the revelation of\nit, such a design to be formed; and that, now it is revealed, you do not\nunderstand why it was so conducted. But we are just in the same state\nof ignorance, with regard to almost every part of the divine conduct.\nThis world, so unquestionably the work of infinite wisdom and goodness,\nis not, in numberless respects, what we should expect it to have\nbeen; of many parts we see not the use and end; in some, there is the\nappearance of deformity; in others, of mischief; in all, when attentively\nconsidered, of something above, or beside, our apprehension.\n\nSuch then being the case of the natural world, why may not the moral\nhave its depths and difficulties? You see God in the creation: why\nnot in redemption? In the former, he condescends, according to our\nbest philosophy, to manifest himself in the meanest reptile, all whose\ninstincts he immediately prompts, and whose movements he directs and\ngoverns: why then might he not manifest himself in man, though in another\nmanner, and by an union with him still more close and intimate?\n\nBut I pursue these questions no farther. It is enough that, admitting\nthe fact, on the faith of the revelation itself, we see a wonderful\ngoodness and condescension in this whole procedure: that we understand\nthe importance of having such a saviour and guide and example of\nlife, as _God manifest in the flesh_; that we are led to conceive,\nwith astonishment, of the dignity of man, for whose sake the Godhead\nassumed our nature, and, at the same time, with consternation, of the\nguilt of man, for the atonement of which this assumption, with all its\nconsequences, became necessary.\n\n_God manifest in the flesh_, is then the _first_ chapter of this\nmysterious book: and yet, as mysterious as it is, full of the clearest\nand most momentous instruction.\n\n2. The _second_ is, that this wonderfully compounded person was JUSTIFIED\nIN THE SPIRIT: that is, _by_, or _through_ the Spirit: another mystery,\nwhich, however, acquaints us with this fact, that a third divine person\nministered in the great work of our redemption.\n\nAnd his ministry was seen in directing the ancient prophets to\nforetell the Redeemer\u2019s coming[64]; in accomplishing his miraculous\nconception[65]; in assisting at his baptism[66]; in conducting him\nthrough his temptation[67]; in giving him the power to cast out devils,\nwhich is expressly said to be _by the Spirit of God_[68]; in raising\nhim from the dead, by which event he was _declared the Son of God with\npower, according to the spirit of holiness_[69]; in descending on his\ndisciples on the day of Pentecost[70]; in bestowing diversities of\nmiraculous gifts[71] upon them, for the confirmation of his doctrine, and\nthe propagation of it through the world; and lastly in sanctifying and\nilluminating the faithful of all times and places[72].\n\nIn all these ways (and if there be any other) Jesus was _justified_,\nthat is, his commission was authenticated by the testimony of the Holy\nSpirit. Here, again, many curious questions may be asked: but what we\nclearly learn is, the awful relation we bear to the Holy Ghost, as\nco-operating in the scheme of man\u2019s redemption; and the infinite dignity\nof that scheme itself, the execution of which required the agency of that\ntranscendantly divine person.\n\nHitherto the mystery of godliness has been doubly mysterious, being\nwrapped up in the incomprehensible essence of the Deity. It now stoops,\nas it were, through this cloud of glory, and gives itself to be somewhat\ndistinctly apprehended by us.\n\n3. In the _next_ view we have of the Redeemer, as being SEEN OF ANGELS.\n\nWe have some grounds from analogy to conclude, that, as there is a scale\nof beings below us, there is also one above us: at least, the conclusion\nhas been pretty generally drawn: and the belief almost universal of such\na scale ascending from us to God, though the uppermost round of it still\nbe at an infinite distance from his throne. But the direct, indeed the\nonly solid proof of its existence, is the revealed word, which speaks\nof _Angels_ and _Archangels_, nay _myriads_[73] of them, disposed into\ndifferent ranks, and rising above each other in a wonderful harmony and\nproportion.\n\nSuch is the idea which scripture gives us of the invisible world. Now,\nto raise our minds to some just apprehension of the great scheme of our\nredemption, it represents that world, as being put in motion by that\nscheme, as attentive and _earnest to look into it_[74]: and, to exalt our\nconceptions of the Redeemer himself, it speaks of that world as being\nin subjection to him; of all its inhabitants, the highest in place and\ndignity, as serving in his retinue, and paying homage to his person[75].\n\nThey accordingly ministered to him in this capacity, when they celebrated\nhis birth in the fields of Bethlehem[76]; when they took part with him\nin his triumphs over the adversary in the desart[77]: when they flew to\nstrengthen him in his last agonies[78]; when they attended, in their\nrobes of state to grace his resurrection[79]: and when they ranked\nthemselves, with all observance, about him, as he went up into heaven[80].\n\n_Of the angels_, then, _he was seen_, on all these, and doubtless other,\noccasions. But how was he seen? With love and wonder unspeakable, when\nthey saw their Lord and Master thus humbling himself for the sake of man;\nwhen they contemplated this bright effulgence of the Deity, _the express\nimage of his person_[81], veiling all his glories in flesh, and,\n\n \u2014_low-rooft beneath the skies_,\n\nas our great poet sublimely represents his humiliation[82].\n\nStill the _mystery_ continues, though it now submits itself to the\nscrutiny of our senses; for it follows,\n\n4. That he was PREACHED TO THE GENTILES.\n\nTo enter into the full meaning of this clause, we are to reflect, That,\nwhen the nations of the earth had so prodigiously corrupted themselves\nas to lose the memory of the true religion, and to give themselves over\nto the most abominable impieties, it pleased God to select one faithful\nfamily from the rest of the degenerate world, and in due time to advance\nit into a numerous people; which he vouchsafed to take into a near\nrelation to himself, and, by a singular policy, to preserve distinct and\nseparate from the surrounding tribes of Idolaters. Henceforth, the Jews\n(for of that people I speak) considered themselves as the sole favourites\nof Heaven (as they were, indeed, the sole worshippers of the true God),\nand all the heathen as the outcasts of its providence.\n\nThis notion, in process of time, became so rooted in them, that when\nJesus now appeared in Judea, they were ready to engross all his favours\nto themselves, and thought it strange and incredible, that any part of\nthem should be conferred on the reprobate heathen. So that he himself\nwas obliged to proceed with much caution in opening the extent of his\ncommission, and St. Paul everywhere speaks of the design to save the\nGentiles as the profoundest mystery, as _that which had been kept secret\nsince the world began_[83].\n\nIn the mean time, the mercy of God had much larger views, and sent the\nMessiah to be _the saviour of_ ALL _men, especially of them_, out of\nevery nation, _that believe_[84].\n\nBut this mercy, so _mysterious_ to the Jews, could not be much less so to\nthe Gentiles, who must feel how disproportioned the blessing was to any\ndeserts of man; and who saw how enormous and how general that corruption\nwas, which in all likelihood must exclude them from it. Thus it might\nreasonably be matter of _silent wonder_[85], to both parties, to hear\n_Christ preached to the Gentiles_: only, this _latter_ (of which party\nwe ourselves are) might say with a peculiar exultation, what the Jews,\neven in _glorifying_ the Author of it, were not, without some reluctance,\nbrought to acknowledge; _Then hath God, also, to the Gentiles granted\nrepentance unto life._\n\nAnd if the surprize be deservedly great to hear Christ _preached to the\nGentiles_, it must in all reason grow upon us to find,\n\n5. In the succeeding link of this _mysterious_ chain, that he was\neven BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD; that is, in the world both of Jews and\nGentiles; in the former, to a certain extent; and, in the latter, to one\nwhich, though not universal, is truly astonishing.\n\nOf the Jews it is affirmed, that _multitudes_[86] of them believed: and\nwhat especially redounds to their honour and to our benefit, is, that out\nof the Jewish believers were taken those favoured servants of God, that\nopened the door of faith to the Gentiles, and became his instruments in\nconveying the light of the Gospel to all generations. And, considering\nthe inveterate prejudices of that people, such a measure of faith, and\nsuch effects of it, could not well have been expected from that quarter.\n\nBut then, for the Gentiles, it is astonishing to observe how quick and\nhow general their conversion to the faith was: so that all men seemed\nto _press_[87] into the kingdom of God, and, as it were, to _take it by\nviolence_[88]. For, within forty years from the death of Christ, the\nsound of the Gospel _had gone out into all lands_[89]; and, in less\nthan three centuries from that event, the empire itself, that is, all\nthe civilized part of the earth, became Christian: and this, in spite\nof every obstruction, which the lusts of men, operating with all their\nforce, and confederated together, could throw in the way of the new\nreligion.\n\n_So mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed[90]!_ and it still\nprevails: not every where indeed, nor any where to that degree in which,\nwe trust, it one day will; but to a certain degree over a great part\nof the globe, and especially in the more enlightened parts of it: an\nevident proof, that reason is congenial with faith; and that nothing but\nignorance, corrupted by vice, can hold out against the cross of Jesus.\n\nYet this power of the cross must be thought prodigious; since its\npretensions are so high, and its doctrine so pure, that, in a world\novergrown with presumption and vice, it could never have made its way to\nso much consideration, if the hand of God had not been with it.\n\nSuch is the mystery of Christ _believed on in the world_!\n\nBut now the Apostle, who had digressed a little from his main subject,\nor rather had anticipated some part of it, returns, from the effects\nwhich Christianity was to have on the world, to the person of its divine\nAuthor; who, as it follows in the\n\n6. _Sixth_, and last clause of this panegyrick, WAS RECEIVED UP INTO\nGLORY.\n\nAnd this circumstance was proper to shut up so stupendous a scene. It\nopened with a view of _God manifest in the flesh_, degraded, eclipsed,\nobscured by this material vestment; yet emerging out of its dark shade\nthrough the countenance of the _spirit_, and by the ministry of _angels_;\nthen shining out in the face of the _Gentiles_, and gradually ascending\nto his meridian height in the conversion of the whole _world_. Yet\nwas this prize of glory to be won by a long and painful conflict with\ndangers, sufferings, and death; in regard to which last enemy (the most\nalarming of all) the Apostle affirms, that _it was not possible for so\ndivine a person to be holden of it_[91]. It follows, therefore, naturally\nand properly (to vindicate the Redeemer\u2019s honour, and to replace him in\nthat celestial state, from which he had descended), that, in his own\nperson, he triumphed over hell and the grave, and went up visibly into\nheaven; there to sit down at the right hand of the Father, till, his\ngreat mediatorial scheme being accomplished, he himself shall voluntarily\nquit the distinction of his name and place, and GOD SHALL BE ALL IN\nALL[92].\n\nOn this brief comment on the text, thus far unfolded to you, I have but\none reflexion to make. Ye will not derive from it a clearer insight into\nthe reasons of all the wonders presented to you: for I undertook only to\nlay before you those wonders themselves; not to account to you for them:\nbut, if ye feel yourselves touched with a view of these things; if ye\nfind your hearts impressed with an awful sense of your divine religion,\nand _nourished_[93] in the faith of it, then will ye be in a way to reap\nthat fruit from this discourse, which is better than all wisdom and\nall knowledge; the fruit of HOLINESS, in this short but unspeakably\nmomentous stage of your existence; and of HAPPINESS without measure, and\nwithout end, in the kingdom of glory.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXIV.\n\nPREACHED MAY 19, 1776.\n\nISAIAH l. 11.\n\n_Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with\nsparks; Walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks which ye have\nkindled: This shall ye have of my hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow._\n\n\nThe expression, we see, is figurative. By the _fire kindled_, and the\n_sparks, with which men compass themselves about_, may, indeed, be\nunderstood any of those worldly comforts, such as honours, riches,\nand pleasures, which the generality of men are studious to procure to\nthemselves; and in the _light_ of which they love to walk, as being\nthat, which, in their opinion, contributes most to warm, to chear, and\nillustrate human life.\n\nThe effect, however, of these comforts, is, that they who possess the\nlargest share of them, and seek for no other, _lie down in sorrow_:\nthat is, their lives are without joy, and their end is without hope.\nThis is the recompense, which they receive from _the hand of God_; as\nmight easily be shewn, if my purpose, at this time, were to enlarge of\nthat common-place in morals, _the unsatisfactory nature of all earthly\nenjoyments_.\n\nBut my design is to engage your thoughts on a different argument, to\nwhich the letter of the text more directly leads us. For _light_, in all\nlanguages, is the emblem of knowledge; which is to the mind, what that\nis to the eye: And, the speaker in the text being God himself, we are\nnaturally led to interpret that light, of _religious knowledge_; that\ngenial fire, which, more than the Sun itself, is necessary to warm our\nspirits, and guide our steps through the cold and dark passage of this\nlife.\n\nThe question is, Whether we are to kindle this _fire_, for ourselves; or,\nwhether we should not derive it, if we have it in our power so to do,\nimmediately from heaven: Whether we shall do best to walk in the light of\nthose few _sparks_, which our Reason is able to strike out for us, on the\nsubject of religion; or, whether it will not be our interest, and should\nnot be our choice, to take the benefit of that pure and steady flame,\nwhich Revelation holds out to us.\n\nThe text, in a severe, indignant irony, refers us to the former of\nthese expedients, the better to excite our attention to the latter.\n_Walk_, says the Almighty, addressing himself to the idolaters of human\nreason, _Walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks which ye have\nkindled_. But to what end is this advice given? To one, they little\ndreamt of, and would surely avoid\u2014_This ye shall have of my hand_, in\nrecompense of all your speculations, _Ye shall lie down in sorrow_.\n\nIt seems, then, to be the purpose of the text, to inculcate this great\ntruth, _That Revelation is the only sure and comfortable guide in matters\nof religion_. And, to second this purpose, so energetically expressed\nby the prophet, I would now shew you, that all the _sparks_ of human\nknowledge, on this important subject, are but smoke; and all the _fire_,\nwhich human genius or industry can kindle at the altar of human reason,\nice itself; when compared with the light and heat of divine Revelation.\n\nI SUPPOSE, that we are all convinced of what the voice of nature so\nloudly proclaims, that there is a God, a moral governor of the world; and\nthat we are intimately related to him, and dependant upon him. The sum of\nour religious inquiries will then be\n\nI. _What we are to do, in order to obtain the favour of that God: And_\n\nII. _What that favour is, which, when we have done our best, we have\nreason to expect from him._\n\nNow, it will be easy to shew, that the issue of our best reason, in\nthe former of these enquiries, is suspense and doubt; and despair, or\ndisappointment, in the latter. It will appear, that we cannot assure\nourselves of the means, by which the favour of Heaven is to be obtained;\nand that the highest degree of favour, we have a right to claim, is not\nthat to which we aspire. So fated are we, when trusting to the faint,\ndelusive light of our own minds, on this great, this only important\nsubject, _to lie down in sorrow_.\n\nI. To begin with the consideration of _what we are to do, in order to\nobtain the favour of God_.\n\nThat we are to _worship_ God, will be allowed by all reasonable theists.\n\nBut in what way is he to be worshipped? By GIFTS AND OFFERINGS? So a\ngreat part of the world has believed. But, by _what_ gifts and offerings,\n_how_, and _when_, and _where_, and _by whom_ presented? Are _all_\nindifferent to him, and is no preference due to some above others? or,\nmay not my offering lose its value, unless made in a certain _manner_?\nIs it of no moment with what _rites_ I tender my gifts to God? Are all\n_seasons_ equally fit; are all _places_ equally pure; are all _persons_\nequally hallowed, for the oblation of them?\n\nOr, again, are gifts and offerings, to the lord of all things,\nimpertinent and vain? And is my reverence of him to be expressed by acts\nof SELF-DENIAL, PENANCE, AND MORTIFICATION? So the pious of all times\nhave very generally conceived. But by _what_ penance, to what _end_\nreferred, to what _degree_ carried, and how _long_ continued?\n\nWe may think of these questions, and of ourselves, what we will. But\nsuch questions, as these, have been asked by wise men, and, when those\nwise men had only to take council of their own reason, have rarely been\nanswered to their satisfaction.\n\nOr, let us advance a step further, and say that our dependance on God\nis to be signified, and his favour obtained, by PRAYER: that gifts\nare mercenary, and penance servile; both, a manifest affront to the\nall-sufficient and all-merciful Deity; and that the supplications of a\ndevout mind are the only incense fit for heaven. Be it so: Good and wise\nmen have at all times thought highly of prayer; and are generally agreed\nin recommending it as the most becoming expression of human piety. But\nhere again, doubts and difficulties meet us. _How_ are we to pray, and\nfor _what_?\n\nAre all _forms_ of address equally acceptable to him, we adore? The\nGentile world thought not: they were solicitous to petition their Gods in\na certain style, and to gain their ear by some favourite appellation. Let\nthis, again, pass for a scruple of superstition. Still, is it indifferent\nwith what sentiments we approach the throne of God, and with what ideas\nof his nature and attributes we prostrate ourselves before him? If those\nsentiments or ideas be not suited, in some degree, to the majesty of that\ngreat being, is there no danger that we may dishonour, may injure, may\ninsult him by our addresses? May not our very prayers become affronts,\nand our praises, blasphemies?\n\nAnd is it so easy to think justly on this mysterious subject, as that\nreason, every man\u2019s own reason, can instruct him? What if two or three\ndivine men of the pagan world guessed right? Was their opinion any rule,\nwas it even any authority, to the bulk of worshippers[94]?\n\nBut say, that it was their own fault to misconceive of the Deity: still,\nfor _what_ shall they pray to him? For every thing, they want or wish?\nBut thus, they would most commonly pray amiss, for what they should pray\nagainst, for what would corrupt and hurt them.\n\nThese difficulties, with regard both to the mode and matter of this duty,\nappeared so great to the old masters of wisdom, that some[95] of them\nthought it the highest effort of human wit, to form a reasonable prayer;\nand others supposed that none but God himself could instruct man how to\ndo it[96].\n\nThere is a way, indeed, to cut these difficulties short; which is, by\nmaintaining, as some[97] have done, that prayer is no duty at all;\nbut a vain superfluous observance, justly ranked with the fancies of\nsuperstition: that God is not honoured by any external, no, nor by any\nmental, applications to him: that a good conscience[98] is true piety,\nand a spotless life, the only religion.\n\nAdmit this exalted idea of divine worship; yet, where shall we find,\namong the sons of Adam, one such worshipper? Who shall lay claim to that\nconscience, or this life? Where is the man, that passes a single day, an\nhour almost, without doing that which he ought not to do, or omitting\nsomewhat he ought to have done? And what multitudes are there, who cover\nthemselves with infamy, and with crimes?\n\nAnd what shall the trembling mind do, when it looks up, as at times it\ncannot help doing, to that God, who _is of purer eyes, than to behold\niniquity_?\n\n_Repent_, it will be said: that species of piety is all-powerful with\nHeaven; it can efface sin, and restore tranquillity.\n\nHere, again, the general sense of mankind runs another way. For, if it\nbe so clear, that repentance alone has this virtue, how came the idea of\natonement and expiation into the world? and whence the almost universal\npractice of _propitiatory sacrifices_?\n\nIt is easy, no doubt, to brand this disposition of the human mind, as so\nmany others, with the opprobrious name of superstition. Let us see, then,\nwhat the merits and claims are, of _Repentance itself_.\n\nA man offends against God, and the sense of his own mind. On reflexion\n(what can he do less?) he repents; and (if it please God) is forgiven.\nBut passion revives; he offends again, and repents again; and so goes\non, through his whole life, in a course of alternate transgression, and\nrepentance. And is this all the claim he has to be received, at length,\ninto the favour of God, that he never sinned, though he did it every day,\nbut he was sorry for it?\n\nYes, you will say, _If my brother trespass against me seven times in a\nday, and seven times in a day turn again and repent_, I am bound by the\nlaw of Christ himself to forgive him[99]. And will God be less placable,\nthan his creature man is required to be[100]?\n\nThis rule of conduct is very fit to be observed by one offender towards\nanother: but is it past a doubt that it will, that it must take place\nbetween God and man? WE are bound to this repeated, this continual\nforgiveness of others, by a sense of our common infirmities. HE has\na government to support; of what extent, over what worlds, and how\nconnected with this, no man may say: And what would become of government\nin this world, if every convict was to be pardoned on repentance?\n\nNor is it enough to reply, that human governors cannot pronounce on the\nsincerity of such repentance. If they could, they would certainly not\nregulate their proceedings by that consideration. The law has denounced\na penalty on such a crime: And the public interest requires that the\npenalty, for example-sake, be inflicted.\n\nSomething, like this, may be true of God\u2019s moral government. No man can\nsay, it is not. And therefore repentance, as plausible as its plea may\nappear, can never free the guilty mind from all apprehension.\n\nBut another dreadful circumstance attends this matter. We often satisfy\nourselves, that we repent of a past crime: Yet we commit that crime\nagain; perhaps the very next hour. Can we call that repentance sincere?\nOr, have we a right to conclude that God, who sees through all the\nprevarication and duplicity of our hearts, must accept such repentance,\non our profession of it? Let what virtue there will be in repentance,\nwhen seen by the unerring eye of God to be true and unfeigned, how shall\nman reckon on the efficacy of it, when he may so easily mistake, and\ncannot certainly know the real worth and character of what he calls\nrepentance?\n\nHere then, whether we consider what the moral attributes of the Deity,\nand his righteous government, may demand; or whether we regard the\nweakness and inefficacy of our best purposes; there is room enough for\nthe terrors of religion to invade and possess the mind, in spite of all\nthat Reason can do to repell, or dislodge them from it.\n\nAfter all, in contemplation of that infinite mercy which surrounds the\nthrone of God, and of the infirmity incident to frail man, I am willing\nto suppose (as it is our common interest to do) that _repentance_, at\nall times, and how oft soever renewed, is a ground, on which he may\nreasonably build fair hopes and chearful expectations. To repent, is\nalways the best thing we can do: It is always a conduct right in itself;\nand, as such, is intitled, we will say, on the principles of natural\nreligion, to the divine acceptance.\n\nBut what does that ACCEPTANCE import? _The reward of eternal life? A\nremission of all punishment? or, only an abatement of it?_ Here, again,\nfresh difficulties start up, and come to be considered,\n\nII. Under the second general head of this discourse; in which it was\nproposed to inquire, _What that favour is, which, when we have done\nour best to recommend ourselves to God, we have reason to expect at his\nhands?_\n\n1. If presumptuous man could learn to estimate himself at his true worth,\nhe might perhaps see reason to conclude, that his highest moral merit\ncan pretend to no more, than to some _abatement_ of present or future\npunishment.\n\nLet him calculate how oft, how knowingly, how willfully he hath offended;\nand, on the other hand, when he did his duty, how coldly, how remissly,\nhow reluctantly he did it: with what a gust of passion he disobeyed; and\nwith what indifference he repented: with how full a consent of his mind,\nwith what deliberation, and against what conviction, he sinned; and then,\nagain, with what hesitation, by what degrees, in what circumstances, and\nupon what motives, he recovered himself from any bad habit: In a word,\nhow full and complete and contagious his vices have been; and how faint\nand partial and ineffective, his best virtues: Let him, I say, calculate\nall this, and then tell us where is the stock of merit, on the balance\nof the account, that should encourage him to do more than hope that some\npart of the punishment, he hath justly incurred, may by a merciful judge\nbe struck off, in consideration of his virtues? If such a man recovered\nhis health, when he left his intemperance; or his credit in the world,\nwhen he shook hands with his injustice; or, if his penitence could avail\nso far as to shorten the term, or qualify the rigour, of his sufferings\nin some other state of being, would he not have reason to think he had\nall the recompense he deserved? Could most men, at least, on a strict\nscrutiny of their hearts and lives, carry their pretensions higher? But,\n\n2. But let us be indulgent to human virtue, and suppose it pure and\nactive enough to work out all the guilt, which vice had contracted, could\nit do more than cancel the punishment due to vice, and should we be\nauthorized to expect more than a _full remission_ of it? Suppose, that\nafter a long life, checquered with good and bad actions, but in such\nsort as that the good equalled the bad, and perfectly atoned for them\n(and which of us will say, that this is not a favourable supposition?);\nsuppose, I say, that after such a life, as this, the whole man were\nsuffered to fall into a state of insensibility, that all his powers and\nfaculties were suspended, or the man himself utterly extinguished, could\nwe complain of this allotment, or could reason pretend that it was not\naccording to the rules of strict justice?\n\n3. Still I agree to make a further concession to the pride of Virtue. Let\nthe moral qualities of some men be so excellent, and the tenour of their\nlives so pure, as to entitle them to a _positive reward_ from the great\nsearcher of hearts and inspector of human actions: would not the daily\nblessings of this life be a suitable recompense for such desert; would\nnot health, and prosperity, and reputation, and peace of mind, be an\nadequate return for their best services? Or, if all this did not satisfy\ntheir claims, could they require more than such a portion of happiness in\na future state, as should correspond to their merits, and make them full\namends for all the sacrifices they here made to Conscience and to Virtue?\nAnd might not a small degree of such happiness, and for a short term, be\nan equivalent for such sacrifices? Could they dream of living _for ever_,\nand of living _happily_ for ever in heaven; and call such a reward, as\nthis, a debt, a claim of right, which could not justly be withheld from\nthem? Could any man in his senses pretend, even to himself, that a Virtue\nof sixty or seventy years, though ever so perfect, ever so constant,\ndeserved immortal life in bliss and glory? Incredible: impossible: the\nmerit and the recompense are too widely disjoined, the disproportion\nbetween them is too vast, to give the least colour of reason to such\nexpectations. A Saint, or a Martyr, has no claim of right to so immense a\nreward, so transcendant a felicity.\n\n\u2019Tis true, Christianity gives us these hopes, which Reason forwardly\nassumes, and makes her own; forgetting at the same time, or unthankfully\nslighting, the only grounds on which they are founded. For, though\neternal life be promised to favoured man in the Gospel, it is there\npromised to him, not as a debt, but as a free gift; and that, not in\nconsideration of his good works, but of his faith in Jesus.\n\nSee then, to what the hopes of nature, the conclusions of reason and\nphilosophy, amount, on this interesting subject. We are in the hands of\nan all-wise and all-righteous God, and are undone without his favour. Yet\nhow that favour is to be obtained, we know not; or, if we do know, we\nare unable of ourselves to obtain it in the degree, we wish, and to the\nends, for which we aspire to it. Our best speculations on the _means_ of\npropitiating Heaven, are mixed with uncertainty; and our best _hopes_\ndashed with mistrust and suspicion. For what man is so righteous as to\nhave perfect confidence in his good works; or, so sanguine, as to think\nheaven the due reward of them? And yet will any thing, short of this,\ncontent our impatient desires? Should our virtues merit no more than some\nabatement of future misery, so justly due to our innumerable ill deserts,\nhow sad a prospect have we before us? or, if they do but free us from\npunishment, what man is so abject as not to shudder at the thought of\nextinction or insensibility? or, lastly, if they supply some faint hope\nof future reward, what generous man but wishes more to himself, than a\nslight, a precarious, and short-lived happiness; beyond which, as we have\nseen, he has no right to extend his expectations?\n\nIf the Gentiles, who had only the light of Nature to conduct them, had no\nway to get quit of these doubts and fears, their condition was certainly\nunhappy, but would bespeak the mercy of God: their disadvantages and\ndistresses would be allowed for, and considered by him. But for those,\nwho have now the light of Heaven shining about them, and yet chuse to\nwalk in the dim, disastrous twilight of their own reason, what must be\ntheir folly, as well as misery? I say, their _misery_. For this last\nis no secret to observing men, notwithstanding the airs of gaiety and\nsatisfaction, they sometimes assume; and indeed deserves the tenderest\npity, though their perverse _folly_ be apt to excite a different passion.\n\nBut to conclude: It is enough to have shewn, in justification of the\nsacred text, that they who _walk in the light of their own fire, and\nin the sparks which they have kindled_, have this recompense of their\nchoice, allotted to them by the hand of God, and the nature of things,\n_That they_ do and must _lie down in sorrow_.\n\nTo you, who have determined more wisely to govern yourselves by faith,\nand not by Reason only; who rejoice to walk in the clear sunshine of\nthe blessed Gospel, and not in the malignant light of philosophical\nspeculation, To you, I say, the reward of your better conduct, is,\nthat ye know how to recommend yourselves to the favour of God; and ye\nknow what to expect from that favour: Ye understand that, by FAITH AND\nREPENTANCE, ye have peace of mind in this transitory life, and assured\nhopes of immortal unspeakable felicity, reserved for you in the heavens.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXV.\n\nPREACHED NOVEMBER 15, 1767.\n\n2 COR. iv. 3.\n\n_If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost._\n\n\nThe text implies, that the evidence, with which Christianity is attended,\nmay fail of convincing the minds of some men. And indeed from the time\nthat _the Sun of righteousness_ rose upon the earth, there have always\nbeen those, who could not, or would not, be enlightened by Him.\n\nNow it might be a question, whether this effect were owing to the nature\nof the evidence itself, or to some obscurity in the manner of proposing\nit. This, I say, might have been a question, even among Christians\nthemselves, if the Apostle had not determined it to our hands. He who was\nfully instructed in the truths of the Gospel, knew the evidence, with\nwhich they were accompanied, was enlightened by the same spirit that had\ninspired them, and had great experience in the different tempers and\ncapacities of men, roundly asserts that Infidelity has no countenance,\neither from within or without, neither from the sort or degree of\nevidence, by which the Christian Revelation is supported, nor from any\nmysterious conveyance of it; but that, universally, the fault lies in\nthose, who do not receive it. _If the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them\nthat are lost_: to those, who would not be convinced by any evidence\nwhatsoever.\n\nWhat the evidences of Christianity, in fact, are, and how abundantly\nsufficient for the conviction of all reasonable men, I shall not now\nenquire. The subject is fitter for a volume, than a discourse in this\nplace. Let it be supposed, on St. Paul\u2019s authority, that those evidences\nare sufficient; still ye may be curious to know, and it may tend to the\nestablishment of your faith to understand, how it has come to pass, that\nso much light could be resisted.\n\nTo this question a pertinent answer has been given from the prejudices\nand passions, from the vices and corruptions of unbelievers; it being no\nnew thing that men should _love darkness rather than light_, when _their\ndeeds are_, and when they have resolved with themselves they shall be,\n_evil_[101]. _For_, as our Lord himself argues in this case, _Every one\nthat doth evil, hateth the light, lest his deeds should be reproved:\nBut he that doth the Truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds may be\nmanifested, that they are wrought in God_[102].\n\nBut then it has been replied, that, though Vice may be many times the\nground of infidelity, and the condemnation of such men be just, yet\nthat some, too, have disbelieved from no such motives; that the Gospel\nhas been rejected by persons, who appear to have been men of large and\nliberal minds, as free, as others, from all perverse prejudices, and\nas little subject to gross vice or passion: Nay, that, in the class of\nunbelievers, there have been those who have distinguished themselves\nas much by the purity of their lives, as the brightness of their\nunderstandings.\n\nAll this may be true; and yet our Saviour affirms, _that he, who\nbelieveth not, is condemned already_[103]; and St. Paul in the text, to\nthe same purpose, _that if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that\nare lost_. There must needs, then, be some latent cause of this strange\nfact; some secret depravity lurking in the mind of those, who disbelieve\nthe Gospel, thought appearances be thus fair and flattering. And, though\nChristian Charity be not forward _to think evil_ of his neighbour, yet\nin this case we have reason to suspect it: and what we suspect, we may\nperhaps find, in a VICE so secret and insinuating, that it creeps upon\nmen unawares; so congenial, as it were, to our depraved nature, that\nhardly any man can be sure of his being wholly free from it; and so\ningenious in disguising itself, as to pass upon others, nay upon the man\npossessed by it, for one of his best qualities.\n\nBy these characters, ye will easily see I speak of self-love, or rather\nthe vicious exertion of it in what we call, PRIDE: A vice, which may as\nfatally obstruct our pursuit of Truth, as any the most vulgar immorality;\nand the rather, because it is not easily suspected or acknowledged by us.\n\nThis vice then it may be, that _hides the Gospel from those_ better sort\nof men, _to whom it is hid_. They had need examine themselves well, for\nit assumes, as I said, the most imposing forms. Who would look for it,\nin the cultivation of the mind, and the love of Virtue? Yet in either of\nthese, it may lie concealed: and an inquirer into the truth of the most\nrational, and the purest of all religions, may be prejudiced against it\nby a double Pride, by the PRIDE OF REASON, and the PRIDE OF VIRTUE.\n\nI. FIRST, _Infidelity may proceed from the Pride of Reason_.\n\nWhen it pleased God to bestow the faculty of Reason on his creature, Man,\nhe intended that this substitute of himself should be the guide of life,\nand the handmaid of Religion. And that it might serve to these purposes,\nit was made sagacious enough, if honestly exerted, to lead him to some\ncompetent knowledge of his Maker, and of his moral duty, and to judge\nof the pretensions of any further light from Heaven, which might be\ngraciously vouchsafed to him.\n\nMan, proud of this free Gift, was in haste to make trial of its strength;\nand finding it could do something, too easily concluded it could do every\nthing. Yet its weakness soon appeared; first, in man\u2019s transgression,\nand consequent forfeiture of another free Gift, that of immortality; and\nnext, in the portentous errors he fell into, both in respect of virtue\nand religion. For God, who had graciously intended for him, in due time,\nanother and safer guide, to prepare him for the reception of it, and to\nconvince him, in the mean time, how much it was wanted, had suffered him\nto abuse this, to the worst purposes, of immorality, and idolatry: by\nboth which the earth was generally overspread for many ages, and even in\nthe most enlightened times, notwithstanding his Reason might, and should\nhave taught him better.\n\nBut God\u2019s wisdom and goodness foresaw this abuse, and provided, from\nthe first, for the correction of it. He had signified his purpose from\nthe moment of man\u2019s transgression, and afterwards by a gradual opening\nof his scheme, in many successive revelations; all terminating in that\nuniversal redemption of mankind by the sacrifice, and through the Gospel,\nof his Son. This last and greatest instance of the divine love for man,\nit might be expected, after so much experience of his own debility and\nfolly, he would gladly and thankfully receive; and, that he might be\nqualified to discern the hand of God from the practices of fallible\nand designing men, was one main end, as I said, which God designed in\nlighting up the lamp of Reason in him.\n\nBut now this boasted Guide, though found to be poor and weak, grew proud\nand presumptuous. It would not only judge of the credentials of divine\nRevelation (which was its proper office, and without which faculty\nof judging there could be no security from the endless impostures of\nfanaticism and superstition, but not content with this power) it would\ndecide peremptorily on the nature and fitness of the Revelation itself;\nand would either admit none, or such only, as it should perfectly\ncomprehend.\n\nHere, then, Reason forgot its own use, and power: its use, which was to\nbring him to the acknowledgement of a divine Religion; and its power,\nwhich did not enable him to judge of the infinite counsels of God, but to\ntry whether any such were revealed to him. In a word, he forgot that his\nutmost capacity extended no farther than just to see whether the proposed\nRevelation were such as might come from God, as contradicting no clear\nand certain principles of reason, and whether the evidences were such as\nproved that it did so. If it contained nothing repugnant to right Reason,\nthat is, to a prior light derived from the same source of Truth, it might\ncome from Heaven; if the attestations of it were clear and convincing,\nit must proceed from that quarter. To try its credibility and authority,\nwas then within the province of Reason: to determine of its absolute\nnecessity and fitness, and to explore the depth and height of those\ncounsels, on which it is framed, was above its reach and comprehension.\n\nYet Reason assumed to herself, too generally, this latter office;\nand this I call, the PRIDE of Reason. Hence all its wanderings and\nmiscarriages; from this perverse application of its powers arose all the\nheresies that have distracted the Christian Church, and all the infidel\nsystems that have been invented to overthrow it. In both cases, men would\nbe wise _above_, or _against, what was written_.\n\nOf the Heresies, I have nothing to say at this time. They appear at large\nin the ecclesiastical historian. Of the dreams of infidelity, as arising\nfrom the fumes of pride, so much is to be said, as my present subject\nrequires of me, but this in as few words as possible.\n\n_The pride of Reason_ has then pronounced (as it operated at different\ntimes, and on different tempers), that Revelation is unnecessary,\nbecause Reason could see and discover by its own light all that was\nneedful to our direction and happiness\u2014that, if it were wanted by us,\nit was impossible to be given consistently with the laws of nature and\nexperience\u2014that as to that pretended scheme of Revelation, called the\nGospel, its morality indeed was pure enough, but that it carried no other\ninternal marks of its divinity: that its doctrines were such as Reason\nwould not expect, and in many cases could not understand: that it talked\nof divine things in a manner that was strange and extraordinary; of a\npurpose to redeem mankind which, if it were needful at all, might have\nbeen effected by more rational and less operose methods; and to save and\nsanctify them by such means as seemed fanciful and delusive: that the\ndivine nature was spoken of in high mysterious terms, which puzzle and\nconfound our Metaphysics; and that the offices, in which the Godhead\nwas employed, are either degrading, or such as imply an immoderate and\ninconceivable condescension.\n\nAnd what then, say others, is the basis on which this incredible\nRevelation rests? Why on _Miracles_, which we cannot admit, as being\nviolations or suspensions of those laws, by which we know the Supreme\nBeing governs the world; and on _Prophecies_, which may have been\nfeigned, as many have been, or which imply such a prescience in the\nDeity of free contingent events, as is perhaps impossible. If the Gospel\nthen is to be admitted as a truly divine Revelation, convince us, that\nits external proofs are above all doubt and suspicion; and that all its\ninternal characters are such as lie open to the perfect scrutiny, and\nentire investigation of our faculties.\n\nThus does the Pride of Reason vaunt itself, against Reason. For, if to\nany or all of these objections (on which so many infidel systems hang) we\nshould only say, _that they are nothing to the purpose_, what could the\nobjectors reply to us? If pressed closely, they could only take refuge\nin this principle, _that no Religion can be divine, all the reasons of\nwhich are not fully known to us_; a principle, for which they have surely\nno warrant from right Reason. How do they know what is necessary, or fit,\nor right, with regard to the divine dispensations, I mean (which is the\ncase here) when they only silence, not contradict our Reason? Every thing\nmay be fit and right, and might appear to be so, if the whole scheme of\nProvidence were fully unveiled to us. It must be fit and right, whether\nwe see it or no, if the Religion in question be credibly attested: And\nthe credibility will depend not on our fancies or expectations of I know\nnot what irresistible evidence (which it might be best and wisest not to\ngive) but on the real moment of the arguments, on which it is established.\n\nSo that the last effort of Infidelity is only an appeal to the ignorance\nof mankind; which proves nothing but the necessity of a long-forgotten\nvirtue, Modesty, in our researches into Religion.\n\nWe see then how the _Pride of Reason_ has betrayed presumptuous men into\na disbelief of Revelation, and how true it is that, _if the Gospel be\nhid, it is hid to them that are lost_, as well by _this_ means, as by any\nother.\n\nII. But, secondly, there is A PRIDE OF VIRTUE, as well as of Reason: and\nby this Pride, too, (such is the infirmity of our common nature) _the\nGospel may be hid from us_.\n\nOn whatever foundation a man chuses to build his moral system, he easily\nconvinces himself of the worth and excellence of moral action. The\nreasonableness, the utility, and the beauty of Virtue are so conspicuous,\nthat even the vicious look up to her with respect, and the virtuous\neasily grow enamoured of her. Thus it came to be among the extravagances\nof the Stoics, its best friends in the pagan world, that virtue was not\nonly the perfection of man\u2019s nature, but that it raised him in some\nsense, above the Divine[104]. And to make their arrogant system all of a\npiece, they further maintained that this super-celestial virtue, in which\nthey gloried, was their own proper acquisition; that they derived it\nwholly from themselves, and that God did not, and could not give it[105].\n\nThis, you will say, was stoical pride; but it is, too commonly, also,\nthe pride of virtue, of whatever denomination. Penetrated with a lively\nsense of its use and excellence, virtuous men, especially of a certain\ntemperament, take fire from their own heated ideas, and flame out into a\nkind of moral fanaticism. They consider virtue, as the supreme and only\ngood, absolute in itself, and independant of any other. They exalt and\ndeify themselves in their own imaginations; and, though their language\nmay be more decent, the sense of their hearts is truly stoical.\n\nSee, now, whether virtue, under this intoxication, be in a condition to\nbenefit by the sober truths of the Gospel. It presents to us a frightful\npicture of the moral world; much is said concerning the weakness\nand inefficacy of moral virtue. This representation, of itself, is\ndisgusting. But one great design of the Gospel was to reform this state\nof things: And thus far is well: But by what means would it reform it?\nWhy, among others, by Faith and Hope. Yet, in Faith, the proud moralist\nsees no virtue, at all; and Hope, in his ideas, degrades and servilizes\nhis adored virtue. The Gospel proposes to save us by the sacrifice of\nChrist: But He acknowledges no need of any sacrifice; relies, with\nconfidence, on his own merits; and disdains the notion of an intercessor.\nHe holds, that nothing more could be intended by a Revelation, if such\nwere given, than the promotion of our virtue; and that we want not its\naid, for that purpose: that we read our duty in the sense of our own\nminds; which Reason enforces in as high terms, as the Gospel, in a more\nengaging way, and on principles more sublime and generous.\n\nAbove all, the Gospel speaks much of the succours of Grace, as necessary\nto infuse and to confirm our virtue; a language, which the _Pride_ of\nvirtue will not understand: And of a Heaven, and a Hell; by which if any\nthing more be meant than the proper natural effects of virtue and vice\nitself, the idea is rejected, as superfluous and even childish.\n\nTo such an extreme of folly, and even impiety, may the Pride of virtue\ncarry us; and so fatally may _the Gospel be hid from those_, whom this\nlast infirmity of human nature blinds by its specious illusions! And that\nthis is no ideal picture, but one taken from the life, will appear to\nthose who know any thing of human nature; and of the perverse prejudices,\nby which some ingenious, and otherwise virtuous men, have suffered\nthemselves to be misled in their religious inquiries[106].\n\nEnough has been said to shew the issue of intellectual and moral _Pride_:\nAnd how it comes to pass that men _lose_ themselves, who reason, on\nReligion, without modesty, or would be virtuous without Religion.\n\nThe application is short, but striking. It is, That men should examine\nthemselves well, before they presume to think slightly of the Gospel.\nThey may learn to suspect the power and influence of their grosser\npassions, when they see that even these refined ones may corrupt their\njudgement, and betray them into Infidelity.\n\nThe Apostle says expressly, that _if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them\nthat are lost_: and who, that rejects the Gospel, but must tremble for\nhimself, when his REASON, nay his VIRTUE, may be the instrument of his\nruin?\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXVI.\n\nPREACHED NOVEMBER 13, 1774.\n\n1 PETER iii. 15.\n\n_\u2014Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh You a reason\nof the hope, that is in You, with meekness and fear._\n\n\nThese words have been often and justly quoted to prove the rational\ngenius of our religion: but they have sometimes been quoted to prove\nmuch more, \u201cThe obligation, that Christians are under, to justify their\nreligion, in the way of argument, against all opposers, and to satisfy\nall the difficulties and objections, that can be brought against it.\u201d A\nmagnificent pretension! but surely without authority from the text, as I\nshall briefly shew, by enquiring,\n\n1. Who the persons are, to whom this direction is given:\n\n2. What that _hope_ is, _which is in them_, and concerning which they are\nsupposed to be interrogated: And therefore\n\n3. Lastly, what the proper _answer_, or apology must be, of those\npersons, when required to give a reason of such hope.\n\nThe resolution of these questions will afford us a clear insight into the\nmeaning of the text: and then we shall be enabled to make some pertinent\nand useful reflexions upon it.\n\n1. St. Peter addresses himself to _the elect strangers scattered\nthroughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia_\u2014i. e. most\nprobably, to Jewish Christians, dispersed through these countries, in\nwhich they were properly _strangers_; though, in some sense, all good\nmen are strangers and sojourners on earth, and therefore the use of this\nterm may not necessarily exclude such Heathen converts to the faith,\nas lived in those quarters. But whatever be the precise meaning of the\nterm, it is clear, that all persons of this general denomination, or all\nthe _stranger_ Christians, residing in the places, here mentioned, are,\nwithout distinction, concerned in this catholic epistle. There is not a\nword that implies any difference of age, or sex, or education, or rank:\nnot the least regard is had to the office of some, or the qualifications\nof others: all indiscriminately, of the class specified, who had\nknowledge and understanding enough to profess themselves Christians, are\nthe objects of the Apostle\u2019s address: and of these, universally, is the\nrequisition made, that they be _ready always to give an answer to every\nman, that asketh a reason of the hope that is in them_. But what then\n\n2. Is that _Hope_, of which all such persons were expected and required\nto render a reason? Plainly the general hope of Christians, the hope of\neternal life, the hope of a resurrection from the dead, the blessed hope,\nin short, of salvation through Jesus Christ.\n\nThe context shews, that it was this hope, and this only, of which they\nwere to give an account. For, in the preceding verse, the Apostle had\nbeen speaking of the trials which they should undergo for the sake of\ntheir religion. Possibly, they were, then, in a state of persecution;\nor, it was foreseen that they soon would be in that state. _But and if\nye suffer, says he, for righteousness sake, happy are ye._ Why? because\nthey knew the _hope_ of their calling, and the ample recompense that\nwould be made them in a future life for all such sufferings. Therefore,\nhe advises that they should always have this precious hope present to\nthem, and well established in their minds: nay, and that, for their own\nbetter support in the midst of their sufferings, and for the vindication\nof themselves to others, their persecutors, perhaps, who might ask on\nwhat grounds they exposed themselves to such torments, they should have\nin readiness an _answer_, or apology for their own conduct, setting forth\nthe reason they had to confide in that hope; from which reason it would\nappear that they acted, as became prudent men, and not as blind, frantic\nenthusiasts.\n\nIt being now seen, to whom the text is directed, and what the _hope_,\nunder consideration, is, we have no difficulty in answering\n\n3. The last question, \u201cWhat the proper _answer_ might, or rather must be,\nof such persons, when required to give a reason of such hope?\u201d\n\nFor what other answer could they give (and this they all might give),\nthan that their Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, by whom they had been\nencouraged to entertain this hope, had shewn himself well able to make\nit good by his own resurrection? They might say, in the words of the\nApostle Paul (who apologized for himself to the Athenians, in like\ncircumstances), We therefore think ourselves happy in suffering for\nrighteousness sake,\u2014_because God hath appointed a day in the which he\nwill judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained;\nwhereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him\nfrom the dead_[107].\n\nThis was an obvious reason of the _hope, that was in them_, and level\nto all capacities. It was, also, a sufficient reason, if it was any\nat all, that is, if the fact alleged be true; and, that it was so,\nthey might appeal to the testimony of those, who had seen the Lord and\nconversed with him, after his resurrection; nay, whom themselves had seen\nconfirming that testimony _by signs and wonders_, done in the name of\nJesus.\n\nWe see, then, what is the true and full meaning of the text. The Apostle\nexhorts those, to whom he writes, all of them, the simpler, as well as\nmore informed, to bear in mind the end of their religion, EVERLASTING\nLIFE; and the grounds, on which they expected it, the WORD of their\ndivine MASTER, _confirmed to them by them that heared him_[108], and by\nhis rising from the dead.\n\nAnd now we are at liberty to make some reflexions on the text, which may\nbe useful and instructive to us.\n\nAnd, first, I observe, as most others have done, that Christians are\nallowed and encouraged to reason on the subject of their religion, and\nto build their faith on conviction. For the Apostle\u2019s advice is, not to\ndecline the way of argument, but to use such arguments as are cogent and\nsatisfactory. And in this free exercise of the understanding, which is\npermitted, or rather enjoined to all Christians, the manly genius of our\nreligion is seen, and by it is distinguished from that of every blind and\nservile superstition. But then,\n\nSecondly, I observe, that this work of reason is enjoined, only, with\nregard to _the hope, that is in us_, that is, to the end and scope of\nChristianity, and to the authority on which it rests; in other words,\nwith regard to the EVIDENCES of this Religion.\n\nIt is true, these evidences are a different thing to different persons,\naccording to their respective situations. To the primitive Christians,\nsuch as those to whom the exhortation of the text is addressed, it was\nevidence sufficient, \u201cThat they had the great facts of the Gospel,\nespecially that decisive fact, the resurrection of Christ, reported\nto them by persons, who had been eye-witnesses of those extraordinary\ntransactions, or, who had heared them, at least, from eye-witnesses, and\nwere endowed, besides, with the power of working miracles in confirmation\nof their testimony.\u201d For in those days, it is to be observed, they, who\nwere commissioned to plant the Gospel in the world, _went forth, and\npreached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word\nwith signs following_[109].\n\nThis state of things continued through what is called the Apostolic\nAge, and perhaps longer, during which time it was easy for the plainest\nChristian to give such an _answer_, to these who required a reason of\n_the hope that was in him_, as was perfectly satisfactory. But, when\nthe Gospels were admitted by the faithful, as authentic accounts of\ntheir Master\u2019s history and doctrine, and when the Apostles had further\ndrawn out and explained the principles and proofs of Christianity in\ntheir several writings, that is, when the Canon of the New Testament\nwas completed, and generally received (all which was done within the\nfirst century from the Christian \u00e6ra), Then the appeal lay to these\nscriptures, and the ground of a Christian\u2019s persuasion was, the authority\nof the inspired writers. And now, if believers were asked the reason of\n_the hope that was in them_, the answer was, \u201cThat so it was written in\nbooks, which were in all hands, and allowed by all to contain nothing but\ninfallible truth.\u201d Nor could the force of this answer be disputed, when\nthe memory of certain facts was recent, when the places where, and the\nperson to whom, or for whose use the sacred books were written, could be\npointed out, and when the writers of them were known, by the miracles\nwrought by them, to have been under the direction of the Holy Ghost.\n\nOn the conviction, which this apology carried with it, the world became\nChristian. But in process of time, and after a course of many ages,\nit might be doubted whether those books had been transmitted pure and\nuncorrupted. And under these circumstances the _answer_, being somewhat\nenlarged, stands thus: \u201cThat the hope of a Christian is founded on\nthe authority of the sacred canon, composed by inspired men, as was\nuniversally allowed in the first ages of Christianity, and not materially\naltered, as we have reason to believe, to this day.\u201d\n\nThe answer given in these three periods, is, you see, very general,\nbecause the question is, on what grounds of reason a plain man could\njustify his profession of Christianity: and the answer, in each case, is\na proper one, and of real weight. But the answer of knowing and skilful\nmen is more particular, may indeed be infinitely varied and extended\naccording to the abilities of the answerer; and, from such minute,\nand laboured apologies much additional light and conviction hath been\nderived. Still you see the subject of inquiry, is, the EVIDENCES of\nChristianity, how different soever in different ages, and in the view\nof different persons in the same age. All that unbelievers have a right\nto ask, is, on what grounds we affirm the truth and divinity of our\nreligion: and the sole duty which the text imposes upon us, is to satisfy\nthat question. Their curiosity, and our labour, should not, at least\nneeds not, be extended beyond these bounds. But\n\nThirdly, what if inquisitive men should go farther, and, when they have\nset forth the evidences of Christianity to their own satisfaction, and\nthat of others, should proceed to give us a _rationale_ of its doctrines:\nWould not their pains be useful, as tending very much to promote the\nhonour of our divine religion?\n\nPerhaps, they might, if _soberly_ employed and if inquirers would set out\nwith a resolution of stopping in their curious researches, when they had\nno ideas, or no clear or distinct ones.\n\nBut, even with this restriction, _two_ things are, further, to be\nobserved. ONE is, that no Christian is bound to make this solicitous\ninquiry into the doctrinal, no, nor into the moral part of the Gospel.\nIt is enough that his faith and life be regulated by its doctrines and\nprecepts, whether he do, or do not, see the grounds in reason, on which\nthey stand. Nay, possibly his conduct is then most acceptable, when he\nlooks no farther than to the authority of the Gospel; agreeably to that\nwell-known decision of our Lord himself\u2014_blessed is he, who hath not\nseen, and yet hath believed_: not, that he expects any man to believe or\nto obey him, without reason: but he most approves the ingenuous turn of\nthat man\u2019s mind, who admits his divine mission, on a sufficient indeed,\nbut not the highest, degree of evidence; and much more, therefore, who\nyields obedience to his laws, acknowledged on such evidence to be divine,\nwithout inquiring further into the reasons of them. Indeed, to what\npurpose do I scrupulously ask a reason of that, which I already know\nto be just and fit, because reasonably admitted to proceed from divine\nauthority?\n\nThe OTHER observation I would make, is, That, if after the most diligent\ninquiry, we should not, yet, be able to penetrate the reasons of many\nthings, or to give ourselves entire satisfaction about them, this\nunacceptable experience should not in the least affect our belief\nand esteem of the Gospel. For all that follows from such disappointed\ncuriosity is only this, That we are weak and blind; and not that the\nthings themselves are either false or unreasonable. Our duty, therefore,\nis to confide in the _revealed word_; not questioning its authority,\nor torturing its language; but accepting with thankfulness, what we do\nunderstand, and with reverence, what we do not.\n\nWhen these two conditions are inviolably observed, the way of minute\ninquiry into the doctrines of Christianity, so far forth as they are the\nobjects of inquiry, at all, may be usefully and commendably employed. For\nthen none but men of leisure and ability will think themselves concerned\nin making such inquiry: and even these, if they should not obtain all the\nsatisfaction they propose to themselves, will neither attempt to disturb\nthe faith of others, nor suffer their own faith to be disturbed by their\ncurious speculations. Still: when learned men are taken up in those\nprofound inquiries, and seem most confident that they have penetrated\nfar into the reasons of many things which are kept secret from others,\nthey should especially remember (and that is the Fourth, and _last_\nobservation I shall make on the text), to present their _answer_ or\napology to mankind, _with meekness and fear_.\n\n1. With MEEKNESS, or a soft and gentle spirit, breathing in words,\nneither passionate, nor assuming; that so they may gain as many, and\nexasperate as few, as they can. This was a caution more than commonly\nnecessary to the first apologists for Christianity, who had to plead\nits cause at the tribunal of Kings, at that time, their enemies and\npersecutors. But the rule is always a good one to be observed by the\nadvocates of the Gospel, who never serve it better, than when its prime\nvirtue, CHARITY, corrects, or rather consecrates, their zeal.\n\n2. The _reason of the hope, that is in them_, should, also, be given\n_with_ FEAR: that is, not only with a _fear_ of giving needless offence\nto those, to whom they address their apology, but chiefly with a\n_reverential awe_ of that transcendantly great Being, whose ways they\ndesire to contemplate, and some part of whose councils it is their\nambition to unfold. For, when we speak of God, farther than we are\nauthorized by himself to speak, we are in constant danger of ascribing to\nhim our own weaknesses, and of degrading his ineffable wisdom, when we\nthink to exalt it most.\n\nSuch reason there is, even when we apologize for the truth of God, to do\nit _with meekness and fear_.\n\nTo conclude: Religious inquiries, when thus conducted (and only then)\nare commendable and useful. They exercise our best faculties on the\nnoblest subjects: They may be the means of bringing some to the kingdom\nof God, and they can alienate none from it. Or, whatever the merit and\nthe success of these inquiries may be, the authors of them will have\nthe satisfaction of knowing, that they have inquired in a right manner;\nand, that, how little soever their UNDERSTANDINGS have _profited_ the\nAlmighty[110], they have honoured Him with the noblest sacrifice, which a\nmortal can offer to his Maker, that of an HUMBLE AND SUBMISSIVE SPIRIT.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXVII.\n\nPREACHED FEBRUARY 4, 1770.\n\nJOHN vii. 46.\n\n_Never man spake like this man._\n\n\nIf by speaking, be here meant what is called _fine_ speaking, or\na discourse artificially composed according to the rules of human\neloquence, the subject is unworthy of this place, and the praise,\ninfinitely disproportioned to the divine character of Jesus. A pagan\nphilosopher, nay, and a Christian preacher, might haply so far forget\nhimself, as to affect the credit of _fine speaking_; or, his followers\nmight think to honour him by applauding this talent[111]: But the Son\nof God spake with other views, and to nobler purposes; and his inspired\nhistorians would not have condescended to make the panegyric of their\nMaster, from so trivial a distinction.\n\nLet us see, then, to what the encomium of the text amounts; and what\nthose CIRCUMSTANCES are, in the discourses of Jesus, which give real\nweight and dignity to the observation\u2014_that never man spake like this\nman_.\n\nThis will be an inquiry of use, and not of curiosity only; we shall find,\nin the course of it, very much to confirm our faith, as well as to excite\nour admiration.\n\nI. The first particular, that strikes an attentive mind in considering\nthe discourses of Jesus, is the MATTER of them; the most important; and,\nat the same time, the most extraordinary; of the utmost consequence to\nmankind, and the most remote from all their natural apprehensions.\n\nBut, by the discourses of Jesus, so qualified, I mean chiefly those,\nwhich are truly his own, and properly _Christian_: such as acquaint\nus with the dignity of his person, and nature of his office; with the\npurpose of his mission, and the manner in which that purpose was to be\neffected.\n\nHis moral discourses, though they be divine too, yet, being intended,\nfor the most part, to deliver the religion of nature, or the religion of\nMoses, in all its purity, may be thought to contain nothing more than\nwhat human reason had, or might have discovered, or what the Law of God,\nat least, had already revealed. Yet it may deserve to be mentioned as an\nargument of his superiority to all other moral instructors, that HE ONLY\nhas delivered a doctrine of life and manners, free from all mixture of\nerror, and carried in some instances to a degree of perfection which, I\ndo not say Reason, but, no Doctor of reason ever prescribed; and that he\npenetrated further into the true meaning of the Jewish Law, than any of\nits expositors had ever done.\n\nBut, as I said, I confine myself to his _peculiar doctrines_, such\nas constitute the substance of that religion, which we properly call\nChristian.\n\nAnd here, the weight of his doctrine must be felt by those persons who\nreflect that, coming into a world overrun with vice and misery, he\nproclaimed pardon and peace in this life, and everlasting happiness and\nglory in the life to come, to all who with penitent hearts and true faith\nturned to him. What Doctor, Philosopher, or Legislator _ever spake as He\nspake_, on these important articles? What had Nature taught the Gentile\nworld? Some fine lessons of morality, indeed, which might direct their\nlives for the future; but none that could set their minds at ease from\npast guilt, none that could free their consciences from instinctive\nterror, much less could erect their hopes to any assured prospect of\nimmortality. What had Moses taught the Jews? A divine religion, it is\ntrue, but such as left them under the burthen of a painful and oppressive\nritual, in which the neglect of any one precept, or the irregular\nperformance of any, might shake their security; and of which, when\npunctually observed, the reward was only some present ease or convenience\nin this world. What was there in either institution, that could deliver\nmen from all doubt and uncertainty about their future condition, or that\ncould disarm and appease the universal guilt of mankind?\n\nLet this then admonish us of what, from its familiarity, we are, now,\nso prone to forget, the importance, which characterized the doctrine of\nJesus.\n\nThe _extraordinary nature_ of it equally appears; but will further\nand chiefly be seen, if we attend to the means, by which this supreme\nblessing is said to be conveyed, and effected.\n\nThat a divine person, divine in the highest sense of the word, should\ndescend from heaven and take our nature upon him; _the Heir of all\nthings_[112] should be content to appear _in the form of a servant_[113];\nand, having _life in himself_[114], should chuse to suffer death; that,\nby this astonishing humiliation, he should propose to effect an end,\nequally astonishing, The salvation of a ruined world; that, being without\nsin himself, he should offer himself a sacrifice for sin; that in virtue\nof his all-atoning death, he should undertake to abolish death, and\nopen the gates of eternal life to the whole race of mortal man; that,\nin this way, he should assume to be our _Wisdom and Righteousness_, our\n_Sanctification and Redemption_[115]; These are the great things of\nwhich Christ _spake_; these the amazing topics with which he filled his\ndiscourses. And must we not conclude, that _he spake as never man spake_?\nI do not, at present, urge the accomplishment of all these wonders. That\nis a distinct consideration. But it must be allowed, that he _spake_ in\nthis tone, and to this effect. And did ever any man before him utter such\nthings? Did it ever enter into the heart of man to conceive such things?\nwhich surely are enough to arrest our attention; to turn our thoughts on\nthe evidence, with which they are accompanied; and, till we admit the\nforce of that evidence, to convince us, at least, that such a speaker\nas this, is eminently distinguished from all other speakers, that ever\naddressed themselves to mankind. He discovered, on other occasions, no\ndefect of mind, or temper; nothing, that should lead us to suspect him of\nweakness, or enthusiasm; And when such a person so speaks, the sublime\nand extraordinary nature of his doctrine is no small presumption of its\ntruth.\n\nII. Another circumstance that distinguishes the discourses of Jesus, is\nthe AUTHORITY, with which they were delivered. The people themselves\nremarked this circumstance, and were astonished at it; _for he taught\nthem_, says the sacred historian, _as one who had authority, and not as\nthe Scribes_[116].\n\nInterpreters differ in explaining what this _authority_ was; but it\nconsisted, very clearly, in these three things. 1. He taught mankind\nwithout any degree of doubt and hesitation, with the air of one who knew\nthe truth of what he said, and was perfectly assured of all he spake.\n_Verily, verily, I say to thee, we speak that we do know, and testify\nthat we have seen[117]._ 2. He taught his great lessons of morality and\nreligion, not as derived from the information of others, or from the\ndictates of his own reason, but as immediately conveyed to him from the\nsource of light and truth, from God himself. _Whatsoever I speak, even\nas the Father said to me, so I_ speak[118]. 3. Lastly, He delivered his\ndoctrine on very many occasions, as the proper author of it, as one\nwho had a right to propose the terms of Salvation, in his own name. I\n_say unto You_\u2014is the formulary, with which he prefaces his momentous\ninstructions. _He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life, and_\nI _will raise him up at the last day_[119]. _Be thou faithful unto death,\nand_ I _will give thee a crown of life_[120]. Nay, he goes so far as\nto assert expressly, _that he hath life in himself, even as the Father\nhath life in himself_[121]. And though he says, at the same time, that\nhe had this privilege given him by the Father, and though he declares,\nelsewhere, that as the _Father had taught him, so he spake_[122];\nyet there is no contradiction in these affirmations; for he tells us\nexpressly\u2014_All things that the Father hath, are mine_[123]; _And I and\nthe Father are one_[124].\n\nThese three circumstances, taken together, constitute the proper\nauthority of Christ\u2019s doctrine. It was the authority of one, who spake\nfrom conviction; who spake by the special appointment of God the Father,\nwho even spake, by virtue of his own essential right, from himself, and\nin his own name.\n\nCompare, now, this _authoritative_ way of speaking, with that of the\nJewish scribes; who explained their Law, as they could, by the precarious\ntraditions of their forefathers, and the uncertain glosses of their\ncelebrated Doctors: Compare it with that of the Gentile Philosophers; who\nquibbled, by the help of a little logick or metaphysicks, on the nature\nof God and the Soul; who advanced their doctrines of futurity, on the\ncredit of an old fable, or an old song; and even delivered their moral\nlectures on the weak grounds of their fanciful or discordant systems; in\nthe way of negligent speculation, or, which was worse, of altercation and\ndispute: Compare it, lastly, with that of all others, who, in antient or\nmodern times, have taken upon themselves to instruct mankind; and see, if\nany of these ever assumed the exalted tone, or spake with the _authority_\nof Jesus, of _the Carpenter\u2019s Son_, as Julian and the followers of that\nschool affect to call him.\n\nBut high pretensions, you will say, prove nothing. Not much, indeed,\nwhen destitute of their proper supports; yet so much, as to verify the\nobservation of the text\u2014_that never man spake like this man_. And if they\nprove thus much, they prove more; the necessity, or reasonableness, at\nleast, of examining whether these pretensions be well founded. For claims\nof so extraordinary a nature, as they must needs awaken our curiosity,\nso they may demand our belief. When a voice speaks, as from heaven, it\nnaturally turns our attention to that quarter; and, when it speaks in\n_inimitable thunder_[125], it speaks, methinks, like itself, and in\naccents that cannot well be misunderstood.\n\nBut our next observation will carry us further. For I make it\n\nIII. A third circumstance, in the character of Christ\u2019s _speaking_, that\nhe expressed himself with more than mortal WISDOM, on many occasions,\nwhen the malice and captious subtlety of his enemies put that wisdom to\nits utmost test.\n\nHe gave early proofs of his wisdom, when, at the age of twelve years, he\nreasoned with the Doctors in the temple, to such effect, _that all who\nheared him, were astonished at his understanding and answers_[126].\n\nThese answers, indeed, are not recorded; but many others are, in the\ncourse of his ministry; answers to nice, insidious, and concerted\nquestions of the ablest men among the Jews, in critical circumstances,\nand on the most trying emergencies. And to these questions he always\nreplied with a presence of mind so unshaken, with a judgment so\ninfallible, with a dexterity and prudence so conciliating, and at the\nsame time with an integrity so pure and perfect, that no advantage could\nin any degree be taken against him. His adversaries came again and again\nto the charge; whom yet he repelled with so triumphant a superiority over\nall the efforts of their wit and malice, that he forced them in the end,\n_to marvel and hold their peace_[127]. His divine responses came out so\ncontrary to their hopes and their interests, that they were discouraged\nand deterred from provoking any more of them\u2014_they durst not ask him any\nmore questions_[128].\n\nThe limits of this discourse will not give room for a detailed account of\nthese questions and answers. But they are thick sown in the Gospels: And\nye will understand me to point more especially at those, that respected\nhis divine character, and kingly office[129]; in which conversations the\ndanger was, lest he should drop something that might be made a handle\nagainst him before the Jewish Consistory, or the Roman Tribunals; while\nyet he was not to betray his cause, or bely his pretensions. The danger\nwas instant, and, if he had fallen under it, must have been fatal. For,\nin withdrawing his claim of being the Messiah, the _King of Israel_,\nhe must have owned himself an impostor; in asserting it, at this time,\nclearly and openly, he would have given his enemies a pretence for\ntreating him, as a criminal of state; an imputation which could not\nconsist with the truth or dignity of his mission. He came into the\nworld to suffer death, indeed; but not as convicted of any crime, not\nas colourably condemned by any legal sentence. His innocence was to be\nconspicuous, and his honour unimpaired[130].\n\nIn this respect, then, it seems, as if it might be truly affirmed, that\n_never man spake as this man_. And, if this much must be allowed, we are,\nmethinks, but a little way from a further conclusion, _That, therefore,\nhe spake by a divine spirit_.\n\nIf it be said, that this conclusion does not hold, _for that the same\nfaculties of the human mind, which make us capable of_ SEEING _this\nwisdom, may have_ PRODUCED _it_, the ground of the observation is neither\nlikely, nor true. Not likely in the present instance, where the wisdom in\nquestion appears to be exquisite and constant: qualities which we are not\naccustomed to find united in the efforts of human wisdom. But neither,\nin general, is the position true: For then, the power of perception and\ninvention would be the same; then, the divine intellect would be levelled\nwith the human; then, the wisdom of God himself, so far as it was\nacknowledged and understood by us, would be our wisdom. Whereas, common\nsense tells us, that to discover a truth and to apprehend it, to project\na measure, and to conceive the fitness of it, are two things[131]: And,\nthough men differ widely in their capacities from each other, yet there\nis a capacity, which no man may claim, as there is a wisdom, to which\nno man pretends. The sublime views of God in the system of nature are\ncomprehended, to a certain degree, and justly magnified and unfolded by\nmany men, who, yet, have not the presumption to suppose that they were\nthemselves capable, of planning such a system. In like manner, we may see\nand adore the wisdom, with which Christ _spake_, and yet conclude, upon\ngood grounds, that as no man ever did, so no man ever could, speak with\nsuch wisdom.\n\nIV. A fourth circumstance (and the last I shall mention) which\ndistinguished Jesus, as a Speaker, was the penetrating influence of his\ndiscourses, or the divine ENERGY, with which they were accompanied.\n\nOther speakers have thought it enough to convince their hearers by\ncogent arguments; to excite their passions by lively images; to touch\nthe general springs of humanity, or to practise on the peculiar foibles\nand prejudices of the party addressed. But Jesus had the singular art to\nconvince without reasoning, and to persuade without rhetorick. Few and\nsimple words, from that mouth, attained their end with ease: they struck\nthe soul with more than all the effect of that eloquence, which hath\nbeen compared to lightning: they needed no help from tropes and figures,\nfrom the acquired knowledge of human nature, or from the information\nof others, but went directly to the heart by their own proper and\nirresistible virtue. In a word, Jesus saw what no art could divine, he\nsaw intuitively the naked conscience, the secret individual thoughts of\nthose, with whom he had any concern; and being able, withal, to possess\ntheir minds with a consciousness of this intuition, his least word, his\nlook, nay his silence must needs _speak_ beyond the eloquence of other\nmen.\n\nThere are many instances of this sort, recorded in the Gospels. He\nsaw the malice of the Scribes and Pharisees[132], while it was yet\nlatent in the heart, and only forming itself into secret purposes and\nmental propositions; and he surprized them by his answers, into shame\nand _madness_[133]. He saw the seeds of ambition putting forth in the\nminds of his disciples: and by a word or two, he prevented the growth of\nthem[134]. By only _looking_ upon Peter[135], he struck him into remorse\nand tears. And by _answering nothing_, he _astonished_, at once, and\nconvinced the Roman Governor, who sat in judgment upon him[136].\n\nThis inspection of the heart, was that which confounded the officers,\nwhom the chief priests had sent to apprehend him, and drew from them, on\ntheir return, the advantageous report of the text\u2014_that never man spake\nlike this man_. For, by what he said in their hearing, he gave them to\nunderstand that he knew their commission before they had opened it: and\nso disarmed their rage, by only signifying his acquaintance with their\ndesign.\n\nThe effect of what he said and did was, in many conjunctures, wholly\ndisproportioned to his words and actions: and is only to be accounted\nfor, from the clear insight he had into the mind, and from the secret\ninfluence which he knew, by an apt sentence[137], or by an expressive\nemblem[138], to inject into the conscience of his hearers. And what\nresistance can, indeed, be made to such a _speaker_, who hath the hearts\nof men in his hands, and _turneth them whithersoever he will_[139]?\n\nIn all views, then, whether we consider the _matter_, the _authority_,\nthe _wisdom_, or the _effect_ of Christ\u2019s discourses, we must needs be\nconvinced that the text is amply verified, and that _never man spake like\nthis man_.\n\nTo conclude: I have not amused you, in this discourse, with vain\ndeclamation. I am not solicitous to establish the credit of Jesus, as a\nconsummate orator. My views are other and far higher. I would convince\nyou, by a reference to plain facts, that he was more than man; that he\nspake by the unerring spirit of God; that his word demands not your\npraise, but your adoration.\n\nIf men would take their ideas of this divine teacher immediately from his\nown doctrines, and not as they are misrepresented, or at best imperfectly\nrepresented by the glosses of others, they would come, of themselves, to\nthis important conclusion: if they would make the Gospel their serious\nstudy, and not their casual amusement, they would want no monitor to let\nthem into the merits, or the use of it. They would more than see, they\nwould feel the spirit, with which Jesus spake; and they would readily\noffer to him, not their barren applause, but their sincere obedience.\n\nTill this salutary effect be wrought in those who call themselves the\ndisciples of Jesus, it may not be improper to remind them of what he\nhimself said to ONE, who was affected, as we may now be, by a sense of\nhis divine power in speaking. He had been delivering great truths, with\nthat authority and wisdom, which ever accompanied his instructions, and\nthe effect was answerable. For _it came to pass_, as he _spake these\nthings, that a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said\nto him_, in the customary style of approbation, _Blessed is the womb\nthat bare thee, and the paps that thou hast sucked. But_ HE _said, Yea,\nrather blessed are they that_ HEAR THE WORD OF GOD, AND KEEP IT[140].\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXVIII.\n\nPREACHED NOVEMBER 20, 1774.\n\nMATTH. xiii. 10.\n\n_The Disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest Thou to them in\nParables?_\n\n\nTwo things are very observable in our Lord\u2019s conduct towards the Jews.\nHe came to _instruct_ them in the principles of a new religion, and to\n_convince_ them of its divine authority. Yet to such of them, as were\nleast enlightened by his doctrine, he generally addressed himself in\nParables: And before such, as were backward to admit his pretensions,\nhe was sparing of his Miracles. Now the contrary of this conduct, it is\nsaid, might be expected: That he should have explained himself in the\nclearest manner to the uninformed Jews; and should have multiplied his\nmiracles, for the conviction of the unbelieving.\n\nI propose to consider both these circumstances in the history of Jesus;\nand to shew that his conduct, in either case, was suitable to his\ncharacter and mission.\n\nI, now, confine myself to the PARABLES; and shall take another occasion\nto consider the MIRACLES.\n\nThe Disciples, having observed that their Master spoke to the Jews in\na more obscure and indirect manner, than he was wont to do in private\nto themselves, _came and said unto him, Why speakest thou to them in\nParables?_\n\nThis method of conveying instruction in Parables, that is, in some\nfeigned story, where one thing is put for another, and in which the\ncircumstances of the story are to be applied to something different in\nthe intention of the speaker, is well known to have been of constant and\nfamiliar use in the old world, and especially in the Eastern nations.\nThis figurative cast of language had its rise from necessity, the rude\nconceptions of men requiring general truths to be presented to them, in\nsensible images. But it soon came to be affected as an ornamental way of\nspeaking or writing, the liveliness of the image awakening curiosity,\nand affording amusement to the mind. Lastly, it was sometimes employed\nas a mysterious cover of important truths, to which a more than ordinary\nattention was to be raised, and especially of such important truths as\ncould not be communicated openly and directly without offence. Under\nthis last idea, the Parable, properly so called, presents itself to\nus. It was contrived on purpose to throw some degree of obscurity over\nthe information, it contained: And it is in reference to this use and\ncharacter of the Parable, that the Disciples ask why Jesus thought fit to\naddress the Jews in this way.\n\nTo this question, why he spake to the Jews in Parables, and not to the\nDisciples, our Lord\u2019s reply is in these words\u2014_Because, to you it is\ngiven to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to them it is not\ngiven_.\n\nBy this answer we learn, _First_, that the things delivered by him in\nthis obscure way were not the fundamental truths of the Gospel, but\n_the mysteries of the kingdom of God_, that is, certain secrets relating\nto the progress of the Gospel, and the event of it in the world; a\nconsideration, which will be enlarged upon in its place: And, _Secondly_,\nthat it was not _given_ to the Jews, at large, to be let into those\nmysteries, but to the disciples only.\n\nBut why _not given to the Jews_? why was it thought less fit for\nthem, to be initiated in these mysteries, than for the Disciples? Our\nLord condescends to answer, or rather to anticipate this question,\nlikewise\u2014_For whosoever hath, to him shall be given and he shall have\nmore abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even\nthat he hath_.\n\nThe answer, we see, is formed on this general principle, \u201cThat\ninformation in the councils of God is not to be claimed as a debt; but\naccepted as a reward: that he, who hath acquired some knowledge and\nimproved what he hath, deserves a further communication of it; but that\nhe, who hath been at no pains to acquire any, or who puts his knowledge\nto as little use, as if he had acquired none, is so far from having\na right to more, that he even deserves to have the pittance, he may\nalready possess, taken from him.\u201d And what more indisputable rule of\nreason, than this, That, in a matter of pure favour, we should deserve,\nby our good dispositions at least, this distinction before we obtain\nit. So that the answer comes out thus\u2014\u201cI speak to the JEWS in parables,\nbecause they do not deserve, by the pains they have hitherto taken to\nlearn of me, and by the dispositions they have shewn to improve what\nI have taught them, to have further information plainly and openly\nconveyed to them: But to YOU, who have already profited by my doctrine,\nand are disposed still further to profit by it, to you I address myself\nin a plainer manner, because ye deserve to be more fully and abundantly\ninstructed by me.\u201d And to this answer, thus understood, what objection,\nor even what cavil, can be opposed?\n\nBut, further, when Jesus said to his Disciples, that _to them it was\ngiven to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the Jews_,\nat large, _it was not given_, this determination must be understood as\nfounded, not merely on the fitness of the thing, as here explained, but\non the positive will and declared purpose of God. This appears from\nwhat follows. For _therefore_, proceeds our Lord, _speak I to them in\nParables, because they seeing see not, and hearing they hear not,\nneither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of\nIsaias, which saith, by hearing Ye shall hear and shall not understand,\nand seeing Ye shall see and shall not perceive. For this people\u2019s heart\nis waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they\nhave closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear\nwith their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should be\nconverted, and I should heal them._\n\nHence it appears, that the way of speaking in Parables, which Jesus\nemployed towards the Jews, was that which the word of prophecy had\ndeclared he should employ towards them. So that this was one, among\nothers, of the marks, by which the Messiah should be known and\ndistinguished. _To speak in Parables_, was a part of his office: It was a\nduty imposed upon him, in his very commission.\n\nBut this, you will say, is only removing the difficulty one step\nbackwards, and transferring it from the Gospel upon the Law; And you\nstill ask, upon what reasons this strange way of proceeding with the\nJews, thus foretold and enjoined, was founded?\n\nNow, though it becomes us with much reverence to inquire into the reasons\nof God\u2019s dispensations, yet as we see, in fact, that it was God\u2019s will\nto treat the Jews in this manner, we may be allowed to indulge some\nconjectures on the subject; And, as we have traced this difficulty up to\nits source, this will be the proper place to attempt a more full solution\nof it.\n\nTo make way for this solution, let it be observed, that there are two\nways in which this famous prophecy of Isaiah may be regarded by us;\neither, first, as _a mere prediction of the event_, namely, that by this\nway of speaking to them in Parables, the Jews _would_ not be converted;\nOr, secondly, _as a judicial determination of it_, namely, that this\nobscure way of teaching was therefore employed, because it was in the\ndivine councils that they _should_ not be converted. In either way of\nconsidering the Prophecy, this mysterious conduct may, I think, be\ncleared up.\n\nIf we consider the _event_ only, as pointed out by this Prophecy, then\nthe reason, which Jesus himself gives of this conduct, and which has\nbeen before explained, namely the general fitness of such a procedure\nin itself, is a satisfactory account of it. For what more just than to\nleave men to the consequences of their own behaviour, and not to reward\nthem with that which they neither desire nor deserve?\n\nBut, perhaps, the event was not simply predicted of the Jews, but\n_determined_ upon them[141]. And there may be reason to take the\nprophecy, the rather, in this light, because however fit such a conduct,\nas it describes, may be in itself, yet, in fact, it was not observed\ntowards the Gentiles, nor even the Jews after the descent of the holy\nGhost; the Apostles not addressing either in the way of Parables, as our\nLord had done the unbelieving Jews: and this agreeably to their Master\u2019s\nexpress injunctions to them\u2014_for there is nothing covered that shall not\nbe revealed, and hid that shall not be known; What I tell you in darkness\nthat speak ye in the light, and what ye hear in the ear that preach ye\nupon the house-tops_[142]. This different conduct may then lead us to\nsuspect that there was something peculiar in the situation of those Jews,\nto whom Jesus addressed his Parables, which this prophecy respected; and\nthat it was God\u2019s purpose, in the case of such of them as should stand\nout against this so long abused mode of information, when proceeding\nfrom the mouth of the Messiah himself, to leave them under a judicial\nblindness. And supposing this to be the case, the conduct (as severe as\nit seems) may be justified by the following considerations.\n\n1. All the notices, which it had pleased God to give to the ancient\nJews of the Gospel dispensation, were conveyed in this way of Parable.\nThe terms, employed in the old prophecies, were all taken from the\nLaw, but the true meaning lay deeper, and the right application of\nthose prophecies was to the Christian Covenant, and to the character\nand dispensation of the Messiah. This method of predicting the Gospel\nunder legal ideas, was employed for the wisest reasons[143]: The Jews\nhad been constantly trained and brought up in it; and, notwithstanding\nthe real obscurity this mode of teaching was intended to have, yet with\nfair attentive minds they might easily have apprehended the true drift\nand purpose of it. The Prophets call upon them perpetually to give this\nattention: they even drop frequent hints, that might lead them to the\ndiscovery: and, upon occasion, do every thing but expound in direct\nterms, their own parables.\n\nWhat now was the effect of all this intelligence, so gradually, so\nrepeatedly, so solicitously, as it were, imparted to them? Why, they\nwould not hear, nor understand: they perversely and obstinately rested in\nthe cover of these predictions; would look for nothing beneath or beyond\nit, indulged their prejudices about the eternity of their law, and the\ntemporal power of their expected Deliverer, so far, that, when at length\ntheir Deliverer came, for whom this chain of prophetic instruction was\nmeant to prepare them, they did not and would not acknowledge him. For\nthis gross neglect of a mode of information, so long and so mercifully\nindulged to them, God thought fit to punish them by the very instrument\nof their offence. He commissioned Jesus still to continue that way of\nParables, which they had so outrageously abused; and so, in his justice,\n_made it the occasion of blinding their eyes and hardening their\nhearts_[144], to their final rejection and reprobation.\n\nThis seems to be the true state of the case: and what has Reason to\nobject to it? Can any thing be more just, than that a much abused mercy\nshould end in punishment? And can any thing be more fit, than that such\npunishment should be the forfeiture of that blessing, which the mercy\nwas intended to convey, and should even be inflicted by the very means\nof that mercy[145]? What is there in this \u0153conomy of God\u2019s religious\ndispensations, which contradicts our ideas of the divine attributes?\nNay, what is there in it, which does not accord to the known methods of\nhis ordinary and moral government of the world? Health and Prosperity,\nParts and Learning, are the merciful gifts of God to some men. To these\nmercies, rightly improved, certain blessings are, in the order of\nhis providence, annexed. Yet how often do we see men deprived of the\nblessings, for their misuse of those mercies, and deprived by means\nof the very mercies themselves! The mercies are a snare to them; and\nin the way of natural punishment inflict those evils, which they were\nintended to prevent. Thus, health and prosperity, ill employed, bring on\na diseased old age, and an uncomfortable enjoyment of life; and parts and\nlearning, so fitted to produce true knowledge, are the means by which\nmany are led into presumption and mistake.\n\nAnd in this way, we easily conceive how justly the Jews were punished,\nin their rejection of the Messiah, for their wilful abuse and\nmisinterpretation of the Scripture Prophesies concerning him; and how\nfitly the punishment was conveyed by Christ\u2019s _speaking to them in\nParables_, that is, by that mode of instruction by that very instrument\nof mercy, which they had so much abused.\n\nBut though this perverseness of the Jews may be reasonably thought\njudicial, yet even _in his Judgments God remembers mercy_. Let it\ntherefore be considered\n\n2. In the second place, that, though Christ\u2019s speaking to the Jews in\nParables did eventually harden their hearts, yet not more so, perhaps not\nso much as the open communication of truth would have done.\n\nI before took notice, that the subject of Christ\u2019s parables was not the\nfundamental tenets of the Gospel, but _the mysteries of the kingdom of\nGod_. This we know from the mouth of Christ himself; and it deserves to\nbe considered. That Jesus was the Messiah, that all men were to believe\nin him, and to be saved by him, these great fundamental articles of\nhis religion, together with his moral doctrine, were published plainly\nto all; and the evidences of his Messiahship, as resulting from his\nmiracles and an appeal to their own prophecies, were in no sense\nconcealed from the Jews. So that, in truth, the light afforded to them\nwas by no means so penurious, or so darkly conveyed, as the objection\nsupposes. What was kept back from them and thrown into the shade, was\nonly or chiefly, the future fortunes of the Gospel, called _the Mysteries\nof God\u2019s kingdom_; of which the rejection of the Jews, and the call\nof the Gentiles, were principal. These Christ delivered to the Jews\nin parables, _and without a parable spake he not_ on these subjects,\n_unto them_. Now, though it be true that, had people penetrated these\nmysteries, they might, by a right use of this knowledge, have been led\nto a just apprehension of many of their own prophecies, and, in the\nend, to an acknowledgement of the Christian faith; yet \u2019tis likely,\nconsidering their inveterate prejudices, that the clear delivery of these\nmomentous truths would have had no such effect; nay, that their aversion\nto the faith of Jesus might have been increased by having this offensive\ninformation plainly and nakedly presented to them.\n\nAnd there will seem to be more weight in this conjecture, if we reflect\nthat even to the Apostles themselves, till after his resurrection, our\nLord proceeded with much caution in unfolding _the mysteries of his\nkingdom. Then_, indeed, _he opened their understandings[146]; and,\nbeginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all\nthe Scriptures, the things concerning himself_[147]. But before that\nevent had taken place, so much light only was let in upon the minds of\nthe Disciples, as they were _able to bear_[148]: the _parables_ were in\nsome measure explained to them; yet a certain degree of obscurity was\nstill left on the explanation itself.\n\nFrom which conduct of their great Master, apparently assumed by him in\nconsideration of their infirmities, it seems reasonable to conclude, That\nhis greater reserve towards the rest of the Jews, in speaking to them in\n_unexplained_ parables, was, among other reasons, therefore chosen by\nhim, because it was best adapted to their prejudices, and even gave them\nthe fairest chance for apprehending and embracing his doctrine. But\n\n3. Thirdly, and lastly, what if we suppose (as we have the highest reason\nto do, after the trials, which had been already made of them) that no\nevidence whatsoever, not the clearest possible information, would, under\nany management, have had its due effect on the unbelieving Jews? In this\nview of things, the proposing of these mysteries under the impenetrable\ncover of Parables was the greatest of all mercies to them, since a\nfurther degree of light would not only have indisposed them to the\nreception of it, but must have aggravated their guilt beyond measure, and\nhave left them totally without excuse. To _blind their eyes and harden\ntheir hearts_ was then a _judgment_, if you will, but surely a judgment\nin _mercy_, if ever there was any such thing; a punishment inflicted upon\nthem in the most tender and compassionate manner, which goodness itself\ncould contrive, or which their deplorable circumstances could admit.\n\nThese things being considered, To the question, _Why did Jesus speak\nto the unbelieving Jews in parables_, we may now reply, _first_, That\nthis conduct was reasonable in itself, on that general principle of\nEQUITY, _that he only, who hath, shall receive more abundantly_: That,\n_secondly_, the JUSTICE of God was fitly exercised upon them for\ntheir refusing to be instructed by him in the way of Parable, and by\nthe very medium of Parable, so abused: That still, _thirdly_, this\nparabolical method of instruction was, in all probability, better\nadapted to their circumstances, and more LIKELY to be effectual, than\na plainer communication: And that, _lastly_, supposing it CERTAIN that\nno information whatever would have taken effect, this obscure and\ninefficient one of parables served, at least, as some excuse for their\nobstinacy, and was contrived, in mercy, to alleviate their guilt.\n\nThe result of the whole, is, That we are hence taught to adore the awful\nways of God\u2019s providence, in this instance of _Christ\u2019s speaking in\nparables_; in which both his Justice and Goodness are so equally and\nsignally displayed.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XXXIX.\n\nPREACHED NOVEMBER 27, 1774.\n\nMATTHEW xiii. 58.\n\n_And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief._\n\n\nThere were two things, I observed, very remarkable in the conduct of our\nblessed Saviour towards the Jews. One was, that he chose to instruct the\nmore ignorant and uninformed of them, in the obscure way of _parable_:\nThe other, that he wrought but _few miracles_ for the conviction of such\nof them as were incredulous and unbelieving.\n\nThese two circumstances may be thought strange; because the less informed\nthe people were to whom he addressed himself, the more need there seems\nto have been of the _plainest instruction_; and the less disposed they\nwere to believe in him, the greater necessity we may think there was for\nsubduing their unbelief by _the force of miracles_. Yet the conduct of\nJesus was not according to these expectations, in either instance; and\nhas accordingly furnished the occasion of TWO corresponding objections to\nhis divine character and mission.\n\nTo the _former_ of these objections, that which respects his _way of\nspeaking by parables_, I have already replied in a distinct discourse on\nthat subject. The _latter_, which respects his _way of working miracles_,\nI now propose to consider.\n\nThe text, you see, points out the subject, and confines me to it. Jesus,\nin discharge of his general office, and from a principle, as we may\nsuppose, of private affection, _went into his own country_, that is, to\nNazareth, where he had been brought up, with the intention of preaching\nthe Gospel there, and of giving the people of that place the proper\nproofs of his authority and mission. Accordingly, the sacred historian\ntells us, _he taught them in their synagogue_; And we know, besides,\nthat he wrought some miracles; for the people were astonished and said,\n_Whence hath this man this_ WISDOM, and these MIGHTY WORKS?\n\nThey were the more astonished, because Jesus was no stranger to them; and\nthe rest of his family, people of an obscure condition, then lived among\nthem. They knew him only under the idea of a _Carpenter\u2019s Son_, and they\nhad observed perhaps nothing extraordinary him; or, if they had, this\nvery circumstance, as is not uncommon among neighbours and countrymen,\nmight have infused some jealousy and dislike of him. Be that as it will,\ntheir prejudices against him were extreme, and they expressed them in\nthe most contemptuous manner. _Is not this_, say they, _the Carpenter\u2019s\nSon? Is not his Mother called Mary? and his Brethren, James, and Joses,\nand Simon, and Judas? And his Sisters, are they not all with us? Whence\nthen hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him._ To\nthese disparaging questions, which easily overpowered the evidence of\nconviction even from their own senses, Jesus only replied, _A prophet\nis not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house_.\nAnd then the text follows, which says, _And he did not many mighty works\nthere, because of their unbelief_.\n\nThis is the FACT: And the question upon it, is, _Why Jesus forebore to\nwork miracles among these people, because they did not believe in him?_\n\nBefore I reply distinctly to this question, permit me to premise _two_\ngeneral observations; one, on the use of miracles, considered in\nthemselves; and the other, on the use of miracles, as applied to the\nChristian dispensation.\n\n_First_, then, I observe, that, a miracle being, for the time, an\nalteration or suspension of the laws of nature, our best ideas of the\ndivine attributes lead us to conclude, that this violence on his own\nplan of government is only exerted for some very important end, and will\nbe exerted no farther, nor oftener, than is necessary to that end. It\nis true, it may be difficult for us to judge, in many cases, of that\nimportance, and of that necessity; but unless both be very apparent\nto us, in no case, can we be authorized to require or even expect, a\ncontinuance or repetition, much less a multiplication of these miraculous\nexertions. To judge otherwise on this subject, would be to charge God\nfoolishly, and, in effect, to blaspheme his wisdom.\n\n_Secondly_, I observe, that the use of miracles, as applied to the\nChristian dispensation, is to give credit to the character and\npretensions of Jesus. It is supposed in this argument that miracles, duly\ncircumstanced and fully attested, are sufficient to this purpose; but\nthere is no reason to suppose that more or greater will be wrought, than\nthat purpose requires.\n\nThese things being premised, to the question, _Why Jesus did not many\nmiracles, before the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth_, I reply directly by\nsaying\n\nI. In the first place, _because such a display of his power was not\nnecessary to their conviction_. I mean not to say at present, that more\nor greater miracles would not have convinced them (though it be very\nunlikely, that they would), but that they were not necessary to the\nend proposed by them, which was to afford such an attestation to the\ncharacter of Jesus as might be a reasonable and, in itself, a sufficient\nground of their conviction. More than this the Jews had no right to\nexpect. And less than this was not offered: For when it is said, that\nJesus did not _many_ miracles at Nazareth, it is implied that he did\n_some_; and thus much they confess themselves in asking, _whence hath\nthis man these mighty works?_\n\nNow _some_ miracles, nay _one single_ miracle, seen and confessed as\nsuch, was a reasonable ground of conviction. More therefore could not be\nesteemed _necessary_, that is, were not required to furnish the fit and\nproper means of such conviction. Without doubt, God, if he had been so\npleased, might have shattered and confounded all the elements, and have\ndriven the men of Nazareth, and even the Jewish Sanhedrim itself, by the\nforce and terror of his almighty power, into an unwilling acknowledgment\nof his Son, Jesus. But this is not the way in which he treats his\nreasonable creatures, even when he exceeds the ordinary methods of his\nprovidence. He does that which is simply fit and right, in respect of the\nend he has in view, and leaves the rest to ourselves. This, as far as we\nknow, is the universal mode of God\u2019s government, and as far as we can\njudge, is the most worthy of him.\n\nStill, it will be said, though Jesus was not obliged to do more for the\nconviction of these unbelievers, though more or greater miracles could\nnot strictly be required of him, yet so limited a display of his power on\nsuch an occasion seemed penurious, and even unkind. A little more zeal,\nand some supernumerary wonders, might have better expressed his concern\nfor his unhappy countrymen. I reply then,\n\nII. In the second place, that as more or greater miracles were not\nnecessary to the end of giving a just proof of his mission, so they were\nmost probably not expedient to any other good end, but, on the contrary,\nwould have been hurtful and pernicious to his unbelieving countrymen.\n\nWe have reason to conclude thus, if we consider that the same prejudices,\nwhich obstructed their conviction from _some_ confessed miracles, would\nnot have given way to _more_. We have an example in the other unbelieving\nJews, especially in the rulers of that people, who, the more and greater\nmiracles they saw performed by Jesus, were the more hardened in their\nunbelief, and the more exasperated against him. They even give it as a\nreason for their vindictive prosecution of him, that he _did_, and _was\ndoing many miracles_[149].\n\nTaking the matter then in this light, what other effect could a waste of\nmiracles have had, but to heap guilt and vengeance upon their heads? By\nleaving these perverse people to themselves, perhaps their prejudices\nmight subside, and they might yield in time to the evidence they already\nhad, or they might submit to other evidence, which they should collect\nfor themselves hereafter. To have irritated their prejudices, now, by\nfurther miracles, might have fixed them absolutely in unbelief.\n\nThis conclusion becomes the more probable, if we admit the pretensions of\nJesus: For then he may be supposed to have certainly foreseen the present\nimpracticability of converting these men, and to have restrained his\npower before them, on that account. But I am now arguing with those, who\nmake this conduct an objection to his pretensions. I offer it therefore\nas a conclusion only very probable from the nature of the thing, that\nhis _not doing many miracles_ before his unbelieving countrymen, was,\namong other motives, from _a principle of mercy and kindness to them_. At\nleast, the contrary, I think, cannot be affirmed with any shew or colour\nof reason.\n\nBut whatever kindness our Lord might have for these men, his continuing\nto work more miracles among them, under the present circumstances, would\nhave been improper, because\n\nIII. In the next place (and this is my _third_ answer to the objection)\n_this conduct would have opposed, and tended directly to defeat, the\ngeneral end and success of his ministry_.\n\nThe proper END of his ministry was to preach salvation to the Jews, and\nto give them such evidence of his being the Messiah, as was sufficient\nto their conviction. When he had done this in one place, if no very\nimportant considerations induced his longer stay, he was to proceed to\nanother. This was so essential a part of his office, that it seems not\nto have been forgotten, even when there was no peculiar complaint of\n_unbelief_, in those with whom he had resided. For when the people of\nanother place, of more _faith_, as it should seem, _came to him, and_\nwould have _stayed him, that he should not depart from them_, He refused\nto comply with them, and _said, I must preach the kingdom of God to other\ncities also, for_ THEREFORE AM I SENT[150].\n\nThis then was the end of his ministry. He was to preach the word; but was\nnot obliged to see that it took effect, or to wait the success of it.\nHow repugnant then had it been to this end, to waste unnecessary time\nand power on unbelieving Nazareth, when so many other cities, and those\nbetter disposed, claimed their share of each!\n\nBut, further, the dispositions of these people towards him were such, as\nseemed likely, not only to retard and interrupt, but totally to _prevent_\nthe execution of his ministry. They would either have found means, had he\ncontinued longer with them, to deliver him into the hands of the Jewish\nrulers, or by some act of violence would have taken away his life. This\nappears from the rage with which they drove him out of their city, and\nfrom their purpose, as St. Luke relates the story, to _cast him down\nheadlong from the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built_[151].\nSo that his attempt to convert them by more miracles, might have put\nan untimely end to his ministry, when it was now but little more than\nbegun. And, though this event might at any time have been prevented by\nan exertion of his miraculous power, and without doubt would have been\nprevented in that manner, had the conjuncture made it necessary; yet\nthis was no reason for his exposing himself to that danger, since, as\nwe before observed, miracles are not to be expected or employed, where\nthe end in view may be accomplished by human means. Accordingly, our\nSaviour consulted his own safety on all occasions during the course of\nhis ministry, by every prudential method: And when he afterwards armed\nhis disciples with the power of working miracles, he prescribed the\nsame conduct to them, and, when they found themselves _persecuted in\none city_, bade them _flee to another_[152]. It is generally thought,\nindeed, that nothing but a miracle rescued him out of the hands of the\nenraged people of Nazareth. If so, his danger among them must have been\nextreme, and shews the necessity of his removing from them. However, if\nthis last miracle was wrought, it was one more added to the number of\nthose he had worked in that city, and, like all the rest, was lost upon\nit. On the whole, it appears certain then, that the _unbelief_ of these\nNazarenes was a just reason for Christ\u2019s _not doing many miracles among\nthem_, since the opposite conduct would have tended _to defeat the end\nand execution of his general office_.\n\nStill, the most direct and convincing answer to the objection is behind:\nFor,\n\nIV. Lastly, I observe that Jesus _did not many miracles_ before the\nunbelieving men of Nazareth, _because_ such a display of his power would\nhave _been contrary to a general rule of conduct, which he prescribed to\nhimself, and that, on the highest reason_.\n\nThis rule was, _not to work a miracle upon them, or for them, who were\ndeficient in faith_: By which term, _faith_, I do not mean a grounded\nfaith in him, as the Messiah, (for that could only be produced originally\nby miracles) but such an honesty and probity of mind as might dispose\nthem to believe on the evidence of miracles. It was in this case, as in\nthat of _Parables, to him only who hath, more was given_. And therefore\nthe first question be put to those, who repaired to him for a miraculous\nrelief of their necessities, was, _Do Ye believe?_ Are ye withheld by\nno fixed and willful prejudices from supposing that one, coming to you\nunder the character of the Messiah, is empowered to do this for you, or\nfrom yielding to its evidence, when it is done? This was so indispensable\na rule with him, that St. Mark, in relating this adventure at Nazareth,\ngoes so far as to say that he COULD NOT DO many mighty works there\nbecause of their unbelief[153]. The meaning of which is, that there was,\nno _natural_ indeed, but a _moral_ impossibility of his working more\nmiracles there; that is, he _could not do it_, consistently with the\ngeneral principles, on which he acted.\n\nAnd that these principles were founded in _the best reason_, no man\ncan doubt who reflects, that the highest possible favour, which can\nbe conferred on man, that is, a miracle wrought for his salvation,\nreasonably supposes some degree of desert, some prior dispositions to\nprofit by it; who reflects farther, that, where such a preparation of\nmind is not, the miracle is thrown away; nay, worse than that, can only\nserve to the hurt and condemnation of that person, on whom, or for whom\nit is performed.\n\nMen have a strange notion, that when God intends to convince any one by\nthe evidence of miracles, he should repeat and enforce that evidence,\ntill it take effect, whether we will or not; nay, that the most obstinate\nand determined infidelity is only a stronger reason for his contending\nwith it. But this is a very presumptuous, as well as injurious,\nconception of the divine nature: It is presumptuous in the highest\ndegree, because it supposes that we have a right to prescribe terms\nto infinite power and wisdom: It is greatly injurious to the Supreme\nBeing, because it supposes that he has no regard to the moral worth of\nhis creatures, or even to any reasonable end, in the wonders he does for\nthem. The Scriptures represent this matter in another light: they require\nsomething, where much is given; they expect from us to _have_, before we\nreceive; they suppose us in short to be moral agents, and not machines.\nAnd our Lord himself, speaking in the proverbial language of the Jews,\ngives it as a special command to his Disciples, _Not to cast that which\nis holy unto dogs, not to cast their pearls before swine_[154]. All this\nis agreeable to our best notions of the divine wisdom and goodness,\nas well as to the usual course of God\u2019s providence; and therefore on\nthis footing only the conduct of Jesus towards the unbelieving Jews of\nNazareth is abundantly justified.\n\nTo draw to a point, then, the substance of what has been said. To the\nquestion, _why Jesus did not more miracles, before the unbelieving?_ We\nreply, That such conduct was not necessary to the end of miracles, which\nwas to afford a reasonable conviction\u2014that it was not likely to answer\nany good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful to such\nunbelievers\u2014that it tended to defeat the design and success of Christ\u2019s\nministry, by narrowing the sphere, of shortening the term of it\u2014that,\nlastly and chiefly, it was unreasonable in itself, and contrary to the\ngeneral scheme and order of God\u2019s moral government.\n\nLet no man then abuse himself with foolish imaginations, as if Christ\nwas wanting in that which became his office and mission; still less,\nas if he acted from any caprice, or unconcern for the souls of men, in\nnot forcing their belief; but least of all, as if his pretensions had\nany thing to fear from the little faith of those to whom he addressed\nhimself, and could only prevail with the weak and credulous, with those\nwho were unable or indisposed to scrutinize his miracles. Even this last\ninsinuation has been made, not only without grounds, but against the\nfullest evidence; the miracles of Jesus having been numerous, public,\nillustrious, and even acknowledged, at least not convicted of imposture,\nby his bitterest enemies, by those who were most active and most able to\nexamine into the truth and reality of them.\n\nWith regard to the miracles in question, let us be so ingenuous as to\nconfess, that, if these were necessary to announce his office and\ncharacter to the men of Nazareth, more than these were unnecessary, and\nthat their unbelief affords the best grounds to conclude, that they\nwere so. Consider too, that, if no reasons had occurred to us for this\nconduct, it could not certainly appear that it was unreasonable. When we\nknow, in fact, what the method of God\u2019s dealing with mankind has been, in\nany instance, we may be able perhaps to discern good reasons for it. But\nwe can seldom affirm with any shew of reason, from any preconceptions or\ngeneral speculations of our own, what it should or must be. Here we are\nmanifestly out of our depth, and cannot stir a step without the hazard of\nabsurdity or impiety.\n\nIf we have reason to admit the divine authority of our Religion, whatever\nconduct it ascribes to Jesus, must be fit and right, however impenetrable\nto us. If we admit it not, our concern is to see that we have reason\nfor not admitting it. This matter is to be tried by the evidence given\nof that authority only, I mean by the external proofs, and historic\ntestimony, on which it rests. When this is done, no slight cavils of\nreason, no fanciful suspicions, no plausible objections, nor any thing\nelse but the most obvious contradiction in something it asserts to the\nclearest dictates of the human understanding (which no man has ever yet\nfound) can possibly shake, or so much as affect, that authority.\n\nIn the present case, we have seen how entirely groundless the objection\nis to Christ\u2019s conduct at Nazareth. But if this objection could not have\nbeen answered, nothing had followed but a conviction of our ignorance. It\nmight still be true (as we now see it to be), that Jesus acted agreeably\nto his divine character _in not doing many miracles_ before the people of\nNazareth, _because of their unbelief_.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XL.\n\nPREACHED MAY 23, 1773.\n\n2 COR. iv. 5.\n\n_We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord._\n\n\nWe may consider these words, either as an _admonition_ to the ministers\nof the Gospel, _To preach not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_;\nor simply as a _fact_, which St. Paul asserts of himself and the other\nApostles, _That they preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_.\n\nIn either sense, the words are instructive; but I take them in the latter\nsense, only. I would confirm and illustrate this assumed fact: and then\nemploy it as a medium to prove the divine authority of the sacred\nwritings. If it be true, _that the Apostles preached not themselves,\nbut Christ Jesus the Lord_, it will, perhaps, be seen to follow, _That\ntherefore they preached not from their own private suggestions, but by\nthe direction of the spirit of God_.\n\nThe assertion of the Text is, indeed, general, and to this effect, \u201cThat\na number of persons, who were employed to convert the world to the\nReligion of Jesus, did, in the tenour of their lives and the course of\ntheir ministry, pay no regard to their own interests of any kind, and\nwere only intent on the due discharge of their commission.\u201d\n\nBut the subject, in that extent, is too large for a discourse of this\nnature. What I would offer to your consideration, is ONE SINGLE INSTANCE\nof that indifference which the Apostles shewed to their own interests, I\nmean, _Their total disregard of human applause in preaching the Gospel_.\n\nIn this restrained sense of the words, men may be said _to preach\nthemselves_, in TWO respects: When they shew a solicitude to set\nthemselves forth with advantage: 1. as to their MORAL character. And 2.\nas to their INTELLECTUAL.\n\nI. When men would give an advantageous idea of their _moral character_,\nthey usually express this design, either, 1. _By representing or\ninsinuating their superior worth and virtue_: Or, 2. _By suppressing or\npalliating what may render it suspected_: Or, 3. lastly, _By dwelling\non such topics, and in such a manner, as may give occasion to others to\nthink well of their moral qualities_.\n\nLet us try the Apostolic writings by each of these marks.\n\n1. The first way that men take to illustrate their _moral character_,\nis, _By representing, or insinuating their worth and virtue, on all\noccasions_.\n\nConsider those apologists for themselves, who have left us memoirs of\ntheir own lives. You will find, in most of these, an ambitious display\nof those moral virtues, by which they desire to be distinguished. They\nlose no opportunity of setting forth the purity of their designs, and the\nintegrity of their practice. The rest, may do this with less pomp and\naffectation: they may preserve a modesty in the language, and a decent\nreserve in the air and cast, of their narration. Still, the same purpose\nis discoverable in all these writers, whether they openly proclaim, or\nnicely suggest and insinuate their own importance. When men are actuated\nwith a strong desire of appearing in the fairest light to others, it\nunavoidably breaks out in some shape or other, and all the indirect ways\nof address cannot conceal it from the intelligent observer.\n\nWe have a great example in two, the most extraordinary persons of the\npagan world, I mean, XENOPHON, and JULIUS C\u00c6SAR. These admired men\nthought fit to record their own acts and atchievements; and have done it\nwith that air of neglect and unpretending simplicity, which has been the\nwonder of mankind. Yet, through all this apparent indifference, every\none sees the real drift of these elaborate volumes: every one sees, that\nthey are composed in such a way as to excite the highest opinion, not of\ntheir ability in the art of war only, but of the justice, generosity,\nbenevolence, in short, the moral qualities of their respective authors.\nIt evidently appears that they designed to be their own panegyrists;\nthough none but such men could have executed that design, in so\ninoffensive and successful a manner.\n\nBut now, if we turn to the sacred writers, we shall find no traces of\ntheir _preaching themselves_, in this respect. These plain fishermen\ntell their story unambitiously, and without art; or, if we call it\nart, it is such an one as Greece and Rome had never been able to put\nin practice. No exaggerations of what may be thought praise-worthy in\nthemselves: no oblique encomiums on their own best qualities or actions:\nno complacent airs in the recital of what may reflect honour on their own\ncharacters: no studied reserve and refinement in the turn and language of\ntheir history.\n\nIf there be any virtue, which we may suppose them more than commonly\nanxious to arrogate to themselves, any moral quality, in which they would\nshine out to the observation of others, what more likely than an unshaken\nfidelity to their Master? that Master, whom they made it their glory,\ntheir sole glory, as the Text speaks, _to preach_? Yet they are so far\nfrom respecting their own credit in this particular, that they relate\ntheir own infirmities and miscarriages; they acknowledge how wavering\nand precarious their _faith_ was; nay, they tell us that, in his last\ndistresses, _they all forsook him, and fled_[155].\n\n2. This last circumstance reminds us of the next artifice which men\nemploy to set off their moral character, _that of suppressing or\npalliating whatever may render it suspected_.\n\nAs accomplished persons, as the great men, before mentioned, were, can we\ndoubt that many exceptionable steps were taken by them in the affairs,\nthey managed: that, on some occasions, their prudence failed them, and\ntheir virtue, on others; that their counsels and measures were conducted,\nat times, with too little honesty, or too much passion? Yet, you will\nin vain look for any thing of this sort in their large and particular\nhistories. All is candid and fair, judicious and well advised: every\nthing speaks the virtuous man, and able commander. The obnoxious passages\nare either suppressed, or they are turned in such a way as to do honour\nto their Relaters.\n\nOr, take another instance. When Cicero had offended against the capital\nlaw of his moral code, that, which enjoined the love of his country,\nfirst, by his backwardness to join the camp of Pompey, and, afterwards,\nby his prompt submission to the tyranny of C\u00e6sar, What is the conduct of\nthe illustrious Roman patriot, on this pressing occasion? Does he frankly\ncondemn these false steps, or does he content himself with a simple\nrelation of them? Neither of these things: He softens and disguises the\ntruth; he employs all his wit and eloquence to palliate this inglorious\ndesertion of his principles, to himself and others.\n\nI might add many other examples. But ye see, in these, a striking\ncontrast to the ingenuity of the sacred writers. They study no arts of\nevasion or concealment. They proclaim their own faults, and even vices,\nto all the world. One, acknowledges himself to have been a furious bigot,\na persecutor, and blasphemer[156]: Another, relates his own cowardice,\ningratitude, and treachery[157]. There is nothing like a concert between\nthem to cover each other\u2019s defects: They expose the vindictive zeal of\none[158]; the intolerant spirit of others[159]; the selfish intrigues\nof all[160]. In a word, they give up their moral character to the scorn\nand censure of their readers, and appear solicitous for nothing but the\nhonour of their Master\u2014_They preach not themselves, but the Lord Jesus\nChrist_.\n\nBut ye will say, this apparent candour was the most consummate art; and\nthat they confessed some obnoxious passages in their lives, to procure\nthemselves credit in other instances. This, no doubt, is sometimes the\ncase with artful writers and speakers: But then only, when small defects\nand miscarriages are confessed; or, when the facts are too notorious to\nbe dissembled; or, if perhaps they confess such things of themselves, as\nare highly blameable, and might otherwise have been concealed, they do\nit to gain the praise of a more than ordinary frankness and ingenuity,\nthey apparently make a matter of vanity, even of that confession[161].\nThe case is much otherwise with the preachers of Jesus. They scruple\nnot to tax themselves with the most odious vices; and these too, many\ntimes of such a nature as shews, they might well have been kept secret\nfrom all the world; while yet the discovery is made in such a way, that\nsuspicion itself cannot charge them with the design of drawing any credit\nto themselves from it.\n\nHitherto, we have considered how many men may contrive to celebrate or\ninsinuate their own virtues, to suppress or disguise their own vices, in\nnarratives or memorials of their lives; and how free the Apostles are\nfrom the suspicion of doing either. But the same design may be prosecuted\nin writings of another sort: and we have writings of another sort from\nthe hands of the Apostles. I observe then\n\n3. That, when writers are studious of their own fame, they find means,\nin any moral or historic work, though themselves be not the professed\nsubject of it, to do honour to their own character, _by dwelling on such\ntopics, and in such a manner, as may give occasion to others to think\nwell of their moral qualities_.\n\nThey declaim, perhaps, with much heat against certain vices, or\nexpatiate with much complacency on certain virtues; or, they labour some\ndisgraceful portraits of bad men, and draw their favoured characters with\nall the heightenings of panegyrick: And who will suppose, after this\nspecimen of their zeal, that they themselves are not adorned with those\ngood qualities, which they so studiously recommend, or are not exempt\nfrom those bad ones, which they so industriously expose? The artifice is\nso common, that we have it played upon us every day; and yet so imposing,\nthat it constantly succeeds with us. How many popular characters does\nevery one call to mind, that have no foundation but in this favourable\nprejudice! But let me carry your thoughts back to ancient times, and\nfix them on far higher instances. Who that reads the moral prefaces and\ndigressions of the historian SALLUST, but must imagine the author to have\nbeen a model of ancient frugality and austere manners? And who that looks\ninto the philosopher SENECA, and finds him all on fire in celebrating\nsome distinguished characters, and exposing some detested ones, but will\nconclude the writer to have been himself accomplished in all virtue?\n\nI make no enquiry, at present, into the real characters of these\nillustrious persons: I pass no judgment on the real merit of their books.\nTheir zeal might be an honest one; and the form of their writings might\nbe owing to that zeal. But this, I observe, that the form itself is well\nsuited to the purpose of those who would _preach themselves_; and that\nthe sacred writers have not thought fit to adopt this method.\n\nTheir books indeed are full of moral sentences and moral precepts (for\nthey are teachers of morality by profession); but short, and simple; and\nthough earnestly enforced, not ostentatiously displayed. The historic\npart of their writings is wonderful for its calmness, I had almost said,\ninsensibility. No attempt to colour their good or bad characters. Even\nthe transcendant virtues of their Master are left to be collected rather\nfrom the simplest exposition of what he said and did, than from any\nformal representation of them: And, what is stranger still, his betrayers\nand murderers are loaded with no invective, nor set to scorn in any\nodious lights[162]. These divine men are superior to the prejudices even\nof virtue itself; and have so little thought of deriving a vanity from\ntheir own honest feelings, that we are almost left in doubt, whether they\nwere, indeed, actuated by them.\n\nII. Thus much for the indifference of the sacred writers to their moral\ncharacter: Let us now see whether they are more concerned for their\nINTELLECTUAL.\n\nThere are two ways which men take to display their mental qualities:\n1. _By labouring to make appear an extraordinary acuteness of\nunderstanding_: And 2. _By aiming at the praise of extraordinary wit and\neloquence_.\n\nIt is superfluous to observe to you how these two characters predominate\nin all the writings and speeches of uninspired men. Consider, if there\nbe one exception in all those whom the world most approves and admires:\nConsider, if there be not evident symptoms of this vanity in every single\nwriter or speaker, that has undertaken to instruct or reform mankind.\nI deny not, that many of these have been persons of great modesty and\ndistinguished virtue: Yet they never lose sight of their own mental\naccomplishments; they never forget, under some shape or other, in this\nrespect, to _preach themselves_. Even He, who now so freely censures\nthis infirmity in others, is, perhaps, at the instant, an example of it,\nhimself.\n\nLet us see, then, if _the preachers of the Gospel_ have the singular\nprerogative to stand clear of this general imputation.\n\n1. They certainly lay no claim to any superior quickness of\nunderstanding. On the contrary, they relate many circumstances, which\nclearly imply their own dulness and inapprehension. They acquaint us with\nthe gross mistakes, they were apt to fall into, in their conversations\nwith their Master; they are at a loss to comprehend his parables, nay to\nlook beyond the literal sense of the plainest figures; they even record\nthe reproaches which Jesus made to them on these occasions.\n\nBut this slowness of conception, it will be said, was in their early\nunenlightened state, and was, perhaps, affected by them to do honour to\ntheir subsequent illuminations. Be it so. But how do these illuminated\nmen employ the divine light, that was imparted to them? In advancing\ncurious theories in Morals, or in framing subtle Metaphysical systems?\nDo they affect a philosophic depth or accuracy in their researches\ninto human nature, or a superior penetration in their reasonings about\nspiritual things? Do they shine in paradoxes? or strike with quaint\naphorisms? Do they entertain us with exquisite positions, or remote\nconclusions? Nothing of all this. What they teach of moral and divine\nthings, is with the air of men, not who make discoveries, but who deliver\nknown and familiar truths. They tell us many things, which we knew not\nbefore: But they tell them as matters of divine commission, not of their\nown collection or investigation. And, for the rest, they presume not to\nspeculate upon them, at all.\n\nIndeed, the general subject of their discourses was such, as gave no\nscope to the exercise, and afforded no gratification to the pride,\nof Reason. They publish to the world a matter of fact, of which they\nwere eye-witnesses; they attest the death and resurrection of Jesus,\nand preach remission of sins in his name. These were the points _they\nwitnessed both to small and great; saying none other things than those,\nwhich they had seen and heard, and which the Prophets and Moses did say\ncome to pass_[163]. Is there any thing in such a doctrine, as this, that\nlooks like _preaching themselves_? Can it be thought that such teachers\nhad an eye to the credit of their own abilities, or that they meant to\nadvance the reputation of their own understandings above that of other\nmen?\n\n2. Still less reason is there to charge this ambition on their manner\nof preaching, or to imagine that they sought the fame of ingenuity from\nthe terms in which they conveyed their instructions to mankind. If the\nsubstance of their doctrine was plain facts, their language was that of\nplain men. They spake not _with the enticing words of man\u2019s wisdom_;\nscarcely with the ordinary propriety, certainly, not with what is called\nthe purity and elegance, of their tongue.\n\nBut the fact is not disputed, rather is objected to them by such as\nquestion their inspiration (with what reason, we shall presently see);\nso that I may fairly conclude, that such men could have no purpose to\nrecommend themselves by the arts of speaking, or, that, with regard to\nthe praise of wit and eloquence, they could not possibly mean to _preach\nthemselves_.\n\nNot let it be said, that this unornamented style of preaching was the\neffect of their ignorance, and inability to reach the graces of a juster\nmanner. For, besides that it is no new thing for men to affect what they\nhave no talents for, it is certain that ONE at least of the Apostles, He,\nwhose province it was to convert the Gentile world, long since enamoured\nof the study of eloquence, and who, of all the Apostles, wrote most, it\nis certain, I say, that this great man was not disqualified by a want of\nparts or learning, from pretending to this prize of eloquence, if his\nambition had condescended to it.\n\nIII. It appears then, with a reasonable degree of evidence, that the\nwriters of the New Testament had no regard _to themselves_, that is,\nto the reputation either of their Moral or Intellectual virtues, in\ncomposing those books. The fact, as singular as it is, seems well\nestablished: And I draw this interesting conclusion from it, _That,\ntherefore, they preached, not from their own private suggestions, but by\nthe direction of the Holy Spirit_.\n\nThis conclusion follows undeniably from that fact. For, if such a number\nof persons, of different tempers, educations, and professions, could be\nso disinterested as to overlook their own credit in a point, which all\nother men have so exceedingly at heart, and which no other men, nay which\nno other single man has ever been able to give up; and that too, when\nthey were teaching a divine religion, and might therefore seem to have a\ndecent pretence for assuming all sorts of merit to themselves; if this, I\nsay, be a certain fact, what can we conclude, but that the Spirit of God,\nto whose enlightening influences they ascribed their doctrine, over-ruled\ntheir natural self-love in the manner of preaching it, and that _these\nholy men spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_?\n\nTo return then to the Text, and to conclude. _We preach not\nourselves_\u2014said St. Paul, in his own name and that of the other\nApostles\u2014_We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_. The\nwritings of these men are still extant; and bear the fullest testimony\nto the truth of what they assert. This, then, among many others, is\nan intrinsic character, impressed on those writings, of their divine\noriginal. It may be regarded, as a standing miracle, which, as oft as we\nrevolve and consider them, speaks aloud, as in a voice from Heaven, that\nthe Scriptures, they have left us, are the _word and work of God_.\n\nIf their uninspired successors in the ministry of the word be unable\nto copy so bright an example of humility and self-denial, forgive them\nthis defect, or impute it, if you will, to natural vanity and unsubdued\nself-love. But, when ye chance to observe this infirmity in others,\nforget not to say to yourselves, that this high privilege of _preaching\nnot themselves_ was reserved to the Evangelists and Apostles only, to\ndignify their character; and to excite, confirm, and support our faith;\nin a word, to manifest to all the world, in the very frame and texture\nof the sacred Oracles, that they were, indeed, dictated by the Spirit of\nGod.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLI.\n\nPREACHED DECEMBER 15, 1771.\n\nMATTH. xi. 5.\n\n_The Poor have the Gospel preached unto them._\n\n\nMany circumstances, attending the Gospel of Jesus, are such, as we should\nnot previously have expected: Yet, when duly considered, they fully\napprove themselves to our best reason.\n\nWe have a memorable instance, in the Text. Among other marks, by which it\npleased our blessed Lord to authenticate his mission, one was, _That the\nPoor had the Gospel preached unto them. Go_, (says he to the disciples\nof John the Baptist, who had sent them to know of Jesus, whether he\nwere indeed the Messiah) _Go, and shew John again those things which ye\ndo hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the\nlepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and_ THE\nPOOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED UNTO THEM.\n\nWe are surprized, perhaps, on the first mention of these words, to find\nthis last circumstance put upon a level with the rest, even with that\ngreatest of all miracles, _the raising of the dead to life_. We may not\nimmediately apprehend, why the _Poor_ should be thus considered by the\nSaviour of the world; or how the truth of his pretensions comes to be\nconcerned in this treatment of them. But, upon inquiry, we shall find\nthere were some important reasons which determined our Lord to this\nconduct, and which made that conduct, in a peculiar manner, expressive of\nhis person and office.\n\nFIRST, This character was directly applied to the Messiah, in the ancient\nprophecies. Our Lord himself, in the text, quotes the very words of\nIsaiah: So that, _in preaching the Gospel to the Poor_, he fulfilled\nthat prediction, and so far corresponded to the character, which the word\nof prophecy had given of the Messiah.\n\nBut this circumstance, we may suppose, would have been no part of the\nMessiah\u2019s character, but for reasons which made it fit and right, that He\nshould be thus distinguished. Let us, further, inquire, then,\n\nSECONDLY, what those reasons, probably were; only premising one word, to\nascertain the objects, both of the prophecy, and of our Lord\u2019s charitable\nattention.\n\nThere is no doubt but the word, _poor_, in the prophecies alledged, and\nin Christ\u2019s application of them, is very capable of being understood\nin a metaphorical or spiritual sense, and was even intended to be so\nunderstood; I mean, in that sense, which our Lord gives to the word,\n_Poor_, when he says\u2014_Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the\nkingdom of heaven_[164]. But this metaphorical sense does not exclude,\nit rather supposes, the literal. For, who are _the poor in spirit_,\nfor the most part, but _the poor in fortune_? they, whom neither the\npride of knowledge and education, nor the pride of wealth and place,\nhas corrupted with vain ideas of their own sufficiency? But, there is\na peculiar reason for the literal interpretation of the Text. For the\nwords, _blind_, _lame_, and _deaf_, have, likewise, their metaphorical\nsense in the prophet, as well as the word, _poor_. Yet our Lord alledges\nthe completion of the prophecy, in the literal meaning of those words;\nfor he refers the messengers of John to what _they saw and heared_; to\nthe miracles, he was then working, or had worked, on _the blind, lame,\nand deaf_, that is, in restoring their bodily senses and members[165].\nSo that, when the poor are spoken of by Jesus, at the same time, we must\nneeds understand him as speaking of the _poor_, properly so called, that\nis, of the lower ranks of people, whom he was even then instructing, as\nwell as healing.\n\nWe see, then, That Christ _preached the Gospel to the poor_, in the\nliteral, as well as spiritual sense of that word: And, in so doing,\nhe both fulfilled the whole extent of the prophecy; and, as we shall\nnow find, gave an eminent proof of the GOODNESS and WISDOM of his own\ncharacter.\n\nFor, consider the state of the _poor_, how much they wanted, and how much\nbetter, than the rich, they deserved, instruction, when our Lord, in\nmercy, came _to preach the Gospel to them_.\n\nI. The condition of the _poor_, that is, of the people at large, was\ntruly deplorable, at that time. They were every where treated by their\nsuperiors with the utmost contempt, and left to struggle with an almost\ninvincible ignorance and corruption.\n\nThe Jews, indeed, had the benefit of a divine law: but their Scribes\nand Doctors _had made it of none effect, by their traditions_[166].\nThey had corrupted the word of God, by their fanciful cabbalistical\nglosses; and had debased their holy ritual, into a frivolous and sordid\nsuperstition. They had _the key of knowledge_ in their hands; but they\nneither employed it to the purpose of opening the true meaning of the\nScriptures, themselves, nor would suffer the people to make this use of\nit. In the mean time, their pride increased with their other vices: they\nthought themselves _wise and prudent[167], and righteous_[168]; and, in\nsovereign admiration of their own worth and knowledge, _they despised\nothers_. Their insolence to the _poor_ was so transcendant, that they\nreproached them for that ignorance, which themselves had occasioned;\nand even checked their endeavours to understand the true meaning of\ntheir law, in terms of the bitterest scorn and execration. _Have any\nof the Rulers or Pharisees_, said they, _believed in Jesus? But this\npeople[169], that knoweth not the law, are accursed._\n\nSuch was the state of the _poor_, among the Jews: and that of the Gentile\npoor was no better. As the former were only insulted, and not instructed,\nby their RABBIS; So the _latter_ were just as ill treated by their\nPHILOSOPHERS.\n\nThese men, indeed, _professed themselves wise_; and had, in some\nrespects, a juster claim, than the Jewish doctors, to that proud,\ndistinctive appellation. Though their reasoning, on many subjects (on\nwhich, however, they valued themselves most) was little better than that\nof the Cabbalists; yet, in moral matters, which are of the highest\nconcern to mankind, they had been able to trace out some plausible and\ningenious theories, and had even penetrated so far as to apprehend some\ngeneral and fundamental principles of natural religion. Yet all this\nwas matter of vanity among them, rather than of public use. Their most\ninteresting speculations were either confined to their schools, or\nsecreted from the common eye, in their mysteries. Their moral systems\nwere calculated to amuse, to polish, and, we will say, to instruct the\nhigher ranks of men; but they were composed in such a way, and proceeded\non such principles, that the vulgar could be little benefited by them.\nAnd, for what they knew of religious truth, they studiously kept it\nfrom the _poor_, and left them to the tyranny of their senseless, their\nimpure, their abominable superstitions. Even Socrates himself, though he\nlaboured very commendably to reform the lives of his fellow-citizens,\nyet laboured to little effect, as he would not, or durst not, disgrace\ntheir idolatries, the source of all their corruption and misery. The\nrest of these wise men were well contented, at most, with being _wise to\nthemselves_; they stood aloof from the prophane vulgar; and contemplated,\nwith much complacency, or with much disdain, the popular errors.\n\nSuch, and so wretched were the _poor_, when our blessed Lord came to\nannounce the good tidings of salvation to them! Incapable of themselves\nto find out or to understand their duty, and misled, neglected, or\ncontemned by those who should have been their instructors; lost in error\nand in vice, with no prospect of recovering themselves out of either;\nwithout guides, and without friends; in a word, _without hope, and\nwithout God in the world_[170]; What could equal their wants and their\ndistresses? And how loudly did they cry to Heaven for some friendly hand\nto be stretched out, some celestial light to be dispensed, to them?\n\nBut, perhaps, these unhappy men deserved not the care of Heaven. And,\nwithout doubt, if we put their claim on that footing, it will be\ndifficult to make out their title to such distinction. Yet they had\nsomething, too, to plead for themselves, something to engage the regards\nof their merciful Creator, if it be true, as I observed,\n\nII. In the next place, that their hearts, depraved as they were, were yet\nnot so utterly perverse, as those of the _rich and great and wise_, who\npoured such contempt upon them.\n\nAnd, for our satisfaction in this point, we need but look into the\nGospel-history; where we find, from many facts and testimonies, that the\npoorer sort among the Jews were they who gave the best proofs of their\ndisposition to embrace the doctrine, and acknowledge the pretensions, of\nJesus.\n\nWhen he _preached_ to the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees, that is, the\n_rich and wise_, almost universally and without exception, cavilled at\nhis doctrine, perverted his words, and sought occasion only _how they\nmight entangle him in his talk_[171]. But the people, giving way to the\ningenuous sense of their own minds, _heared him gladly_[172]: They were\neven _very attentive to hear him_[173]. Nor let it be thought, that the\nlove of novelty, or some worse motive, which oft seduces the populace\nin such cases, was the cause of this attention. They give another, and\nbetter reason of it\u2014_Never man_, say they, _spake like this man_[174]:\nAgain, _they were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one\nhaving authority, and not as the Scribes_[175]; That is, they had the\nsense to perceive there was a weight and force and importance in his\ndoctrines, which they had never found in any other, and, least of all, in\nthe light, frothy, and frivolous doctrines of their Scribes; and they had\nthe honesty to acknowledge and proclaim their own feelings.\n\nAgain; When Jesus wrought his miracles before the Jews, while their\nsuperiors were unconvinced, or blasphemed against conviction,\nthe multitudes cried out in admiration, _Is not this the Son of\nDavid[176]?_\u2014_It was never_, they say, _so seen in Israel_[177]\u2014With a\nbecoming candour and piety, _they marvelled, and glorified God, who had\ngiven such power unto men_[178].\n\nThus much for the Jews. And the same difference, between the _rich and\npoor_, afterwards appeared, when the Apostles turned themselves to the\nGentiles. So that St. James reasons upon it, as a certain fact. _Do not\nrich men oppress you, and draw you before the Judgment seats? Do they not\nblaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called[179]?_ And St. Paul to\nthe same purpose, when appeals to the Gentile Christians themselves\u2014_Ye\nsee your calling, my brethren, how that not many wise men after the\nflesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called_[180].\n\nAnd, if we extend our inquiries beyond the Apostolic age, we still find,\nthat, while councils and synagogues, priests and philosophers, governors\nand kings, were confederated against the rising church, the _poor_,\nthe _weak_, the _ignorant_, the _ignoble_, very readily, and in great\nnumbers, pressed into it.\n\nConsidering then this fairness of mind, which distinguished the _poor_,\ntogether with their multiplied necessities, we shall cease to think it\nstrange that our blessed Lord should first and principally _preach the\nGospel to them_; and that this circumstance should be predicted of him,\nand urged by himself, as characteristic of his person and office. For\nwhat could distinguish the divine Messiah more, than this condescension\nto those who most needed, and best deserved, his instruction? Who can\nwonder that, _when he saw the multitudes_, thus circumstanced, _he was\nmoved with compassion on them, because they fainted_[181], under the\nmerciless vexations of their superiors, _and were scattered abroad_[182],\nand left exposed to every injury, _as sheep having no shepherd_[183]?\nCould any splendor of miracles more illustrate his character, than\nthat affectionate address to the poor people, groaning under all their\nburthens, of which the pride of wealth and wisdom was not the least,\n_Come unto me, ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you\nrest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lonely in\nheart, and ye shall find rest to your souls_[184]?\n\nOur Lord\u2019s whole ministry seems uniformly directed to this end of beating\ndown the insolence of all worldly distinctions, which had too much\nvilified and degraded human nature. For this purpose, he condescended,\nhimself, to be born in the lowest rank of life, to be brought up in what\nthe world calls a mean and mechanic profession, to converse chiefly with\nthe poor and indigent, to take for his companions and disciples the most\nsordid of the people, and to propagate his religion by the weakest and\nmost unpromising instruments: _Chusing_, as St. Paul divinely expresses\nit, _the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise; the weak\nthings of the world, to confound the things that are mighty; And the base\nthings of the world, and things which are despised, yea, and things which\nare not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory\nin his presence_[185].\n\nIn a word, he seems studiously to have bent his whole endeavours, to\nvindicate the honour of depressed humanity; to support its weakness, to\ncountenance its wants, to ennoble its misery, and to dignify its disgrace.\n\nNor let any one presume to insinuate, that this conduct of our blessed\nSaviour was directed to other ends; As if he sought, by this application\nto the people, to engage _them_ in the support of his new kingdom,\nand then, by their noise and numbers, to force the rest into it. The\nsuspicion is utterly without grounds. Jesus made no factious use of the\npopularity he acquired by his condescension; he discountenanced and\nrepressed every effort of that nature; and, though his care was chiefly\nemployed about the _poor_, it was not confined to them: He _preached_\nindiscriminately to all, he did his miracles before all, in public, in\nopen day-light, in the presence of the greatest persons, and in places\nof the greatest resort; in short, his doctrines and his credentials\nwere equally offered to the examination of men of all ranks and all\ndenominations, of the doctors and rulers of the Jewish people, as well as\nof the people themselves. This, an impostor most assuredly would not have\ndone.\n\nWe have now, then, a reasonable account given us, why it pleased God that\nthe Saviour of the world should be known by this mark, among others, of\n_his preaching the Gospel to the poor_. The GOODNESS of his character was\nsignally illustrated, by this gracious conduct. I have only to observe,\nfurther, that his WISDOM was equally displayed by it: And both together\nmust needs furnish a presumptive argument of his divine mission.\n\nHad the ablest speculative philosopher been consulted about the proper\nmethod of reforming the world, though with the attending evidence and\nauthority of miracles, I suppose his plan for effecting this design would\nhave been wholly different from that, which was taken. He would have\ncounselled an application, not to the _poor_ chiefly, if to them at all,\nbut to the _rich_, the _great_, and the _wise_. The minister of this\nimportant charge would have been directed to shew himself in the most\nconspicuous scene, to make the capital of the world, imperial Rome, the\nhead-quarters of his mission, to perform his miracles before the Roman\nsenate, and to proselyte, first of all, the wise and learned of that\nempire; As conceiving this to be the readiest way to the establishment of\nhis new Religion, and trusting to the power of these great instruments,\nas to some irresistible vortex, to draw the people with them, into the\ngeneral profession of it.\n\nThis, or something like this, we may imagine, would have been the\nlanguage of human wisdom. But what would have been the event of these\nprofound and politic counsels? Most probably, the design would not have\ntaken effect. The interests, the prejudices, the pride, and the very\nphilosophy of the world would have revolted against it. The plainest\nmiracles would have been shuffled over, as the sleights of magick: and\nthe divinest truths, been derided as unlearned and ignorant conceits.\n\nBut what if the event had been otherwise? What, if the new religion\nhad prospered and acquired an establishment by these mighty means?\nPosterity would then have turned the argument in another manner. They\nwould have accounted, and with some reason, for this revolution in the\nsentiments of mankind, not from the will of Heaven, but the power and\npolicy of men. They would have sought the origin of this triumphant\nreligion in the operation of human causes, and not in the controlling\ninfluence of divine. The new system might be preferred to many others\nthat have prevailed in the world, but would be thought to have made its\nway by the same means. It would still be considered, as a mere human\nengine, calculated to serve the ends of society, and not to interest the\nconscience, as proceeding from the sole authority of God. And what could\nhave been opposed to these suggestions? The cause is plainly adequate to\nthe effect: And, thus, the glory of God would have been obscured; and the\ndispensation itself, exposed to contempt.\n\nSee then _the riches both of the goodness and wisdom of God_: Of his\nGOODNESS, in caring for the poor; and of his WISDOM, in providing by his\nuse of so unlikely means, _that our faith should not stand in the wisdom\nof man, but in the power of God_.\n\nTo conclude; _the ways of God are_, very frequently, _not our ways_[186];\nYet, when the difference is most striking, a diligent inquiry will\nsometimes convince us (as in the case before us) that they may be\njustified even to our apprehensions: The use of which conviction should\nbe, to satisfy us, in other cases, that his ways are always adorable,\neven when to US, in this state of weakness and blindness, they are _past\nfinding out_.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLII.\n\nPREACHED JANUARY 24, 1773.\n\nJOHN xiv. 2.\n\n_In my Father\u2019s house are many mansions_: IF IT WERE NOT SO, I WOULD HAVE\nTOLD YOU.\n\n\nThese words are not a little remarkable; and, if carefully considered,\nwill be found to make very much for the honour of the Christian religion,\nand its divine author.\n\nOur blessed Lord was now upon the point of leaving the world. He foresaw,\ndistinctly, his own approaching death, and the discouragements of all\nsorts, which, of course, would oppress his disciples, when he should be\ntaken from them. He therefore applies himself, in this farewell address,\nto animate their courage by the assurance of future glory. \u201c_Let not\nyour heart be troubled_, says he, at the worst that may befall you: _Ye\nbelieve in_ the general providence of _God_: _believe also in me_, in the\ncare which I shall especially take to see an ample recompence made you\nfor all your sufferings on my account. _For in my Father\u2019s house are many\nmansions_; wherein each of you, according to his deserts, shall for ever\nenjoy an inviolable repose and felicity. And on this promise ye may rely\nwith the most entire confidence: for know this, That, _if it were not\nso_, no consideration should have induced me to fill your minds with vain\nhopes; on the other hand, _I would have told you_ the plain truth, how\nunwelcome soever it might be to you.\u201d\n\nWe have here, then, from the mouth of Christ himself, an express\ndisavowal of RELIGIOUS FRAUD OR IMPOSTURE; and that, in a point where\nwise men have sometimes thought themselves at liberty, nay under an\nobligation, to _lye_ for the public service, and in a conjuncture, too,\nwhen, if ever, it might seem allowable for a good man to deceive his\nfriends on a mere principle of compassion.\n\nFor what so beneficial, it may be said, to mankind, at large, as\nthe persuasion of a future state, in which their happiness shall be\nproportioned to their virtue? And who, that has any bowels, would carry\nhis attachment to strict truth so far, as not to suffer an unhappy friend\nto _die_, at least, in this persuasion, when the hopes of life, or the\ncomforts of it, had entirely forsaken him?\n\nThese questions are plausible: but our Lord, who was _the Truth_, as well\nas _the Life_, governed himself by other maxims. He knew that the real\ninterests of mankind are only, or are best promoted by veracity; that\nevery degree of fraud, though it may have some immediate, or temporary\ngood effects, is, in the order of things, productive of much mischief; is\ninjurious to our moral and reasonable nature, which was made for truth,\nand finds its proper satisfaction in it; is liable to detection, to\nsuspicion, at least; and if it be but the latter (entertained on probable\ngrounds, and become, as it soon will be, universal), not only the chief\nbenefits of the imposture are, thenceforth, lost, but truth itself,\nin other cases, is taken for imposture: of which there is not a more\ndeplorable instance, than in the subject we are now considering: for,\nit being well known that men have been forward to deceive each other\nin matters of religion, and particularly in what concerns the hope or\nfear of a future state, hence, an incurable suspicion has sunk deep into\nthe minds of too many, concerning Christianity itself; as if, in this\nmomentous doctrine of life and immortality, it amused us only, as many\nother schemes of religion have done, with a plausible and politic fiction.\n\nBut our blessed Lord, as I said, had other views of this matter, and\ngoverned himself by other principles. He knew, who it was that had been\n_a liar_, and therefore _a man-slayer from the beginning_[187]; and\nleft it to him, the adversary of God and man, to signalize himself by\n_murderous_ deceit and imposture. For himself, he tells his disciples,\nwhom of all men, it concerned him most to possess with this salutary\nbelief of a future state; He tells them, I say, that, instead of deluding\nthem with a groundless hope, he would certainly, and even at this season,\nwhich made that hope so infinitely precious, declare to them the simple\ntruth, and on no account permit them to continue under a false (if it had\nbeen false), though flattering persuasion.\n\nShall we believe this great teacher, on his own word? Or, will you\nsuspect, that even this uncommon declaration, uncommon in the founder of\na new religion, was only a refinement of art and policy; and that Jesus\nhoped, by this shew of frankness, to propagate his favourite imposture\nthe more successfully in the world?\n\nI know, and have just now observed, to what lengths our ingenious\nsuspicions on this subject are apt to run. But consider the\ncircumstances; and then judge for yourselves, whether the suspicion, in\nthis case, be well founded.\n\n_In my Father\u2019s house_, says he, _are many mansions: if it were not so, I\nwould have told you_. And can we doubt his sincerity in this declaration,\nwhen he was now to make an experiment of its truth; and the deception, if\nit were one, was first to operate on himself, before it affected others?\nA speculative reasoner, or a politic legislator, when planning his system\nat his ease, and in no danger of being called upon to make trial of\nhis own principles, might discourse with much complacency, though with\nlittle inward belief, of a happy futurity. But for one, who was just\nstepping into that world, of which he announced such wonders, who was\ngoing, by one confident venture, to put his doctrine to the proof, and\nto expire in torments from a view to his own promises; for one, I say,\nthus circumstanced, knowingly to delude himself and others, is not in\nhuman nature, unless perverted by such a degree of weakness or vanity,\nas no man will think chargeable on the character of Jesus. Socrates, the\nablest and the honestest of the ancient sages, had, on moral principles,\nreasoned himself into a favourable opinion of the soul\u2019s immortality.\nHe had often expressed this opinion to his friends, in terms of some\nforce; and there were times in which he seemed very little, if at all,\nto question the truth of it. Yet, when he came to die, and had taken the\nfatal cup into his hand, his resolution gives way, he hesitates, and\nleaves his followers, after first of all confessing himself to be left,\nin the utmost uncertainty on this momentous topic: a conduct surely very\nnatural, and becoming a wise man, who had not, and who knew he had not,\nthe most convincing evidence of its reality!\n\nBut there are further reasons to think that Jesus was sincere in making\nthis declaration to his disciples, suggested to us by _the terms of his\nreligion_, and by _his own personal character_.\n\nThose _terms_ were, that whoever believed in the name of Christ, that\nis, became a convert to his religion, was thenceforth to encounter all\nsorts of difficulties, and dangers, and distresses, nay, death itself,\nand that, in every dreadful shape, which the malice of the world could\ninvent, rather than to retract or forego his open profession of it. This,\nthe disciples had been often told by their Master: who, whether as a\nprophet, or a wise man (it matters not which, to our present purpose) had\ndistinctly foreseen, and had set before them in all its force, what they\nwere to expect and to suffer for his sake, and the sake of the Gospel.\nOther teachers of religion and philosophy required no such terms of their\nfollowers, or had reason to apprehend no such consequences from the\npropagation of their opinions. They might therefore keep their doubts to\nthemselves, if they had any, of a future state: In Jesus, such reserve,\nor dissimulation, would have been the most unfeeling cruelty.\n\nAnd against whom is this suspicion indulged? Why against HIM (and that\nwas the other consideration I mentioned) whose personal character was\nthat of goodness and philanthropy itself. This character shines out\nin every page of the Gospel. We see it in all he said and did to his\ndisciples, whom he calls his _friends_, and treats as such on all\noccasions: witness his condescension to their infirmities, his concern\nfor their safety (while it might consist with their duty), his compassion\nfor their sufferings, his friendliness of temper, we may even say, his\naffection for their persons and virtues. In short, the sympathetic\ntenderness of his nature was evidenced in all ways, in which it could\npossibly shew itself, even by that of tears.\n\nNow, put these two things together, his _deep concern for the interests\nof his disciples_, on the one hand, and _the severe injunctions he gave\nthem_, on the other, and see if there be any possibility of mistrusting\nour Lord\u2019s good faith in that memorable declaration\u2014_In my Father\u2019s house\nthere are many mansions_: IF IT WERE NOT SO, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU.\n\nHis language on the subject, so interesting to them, had, indeed,\nbeen always the same. _Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and\npersecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,\nfor my sake. Rejoyce, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward\nin heaven[188]._ This he said in the beginning of his ministry: This he\nnow repeats in the close of it; but with that remarkable assurance (now\nfor the first time given, and, from the _time_ of giving it, not more\nimportant, than it is credible) _if it were not so_, if your _reward in\nheaven_ were not such, and so great, as I have ever affirmed it to be, in\nrecompence of all your sufferings, past and to come, for my sake, I would\nnot have left you under an error in what so infinitely concerns You\u2014_I\nwould_ expressly _have told you of it_.\n\nTHE USE we have to make of these reflections is, to see what our _Lord\u2019s\ncharacter_ truly was; and what our reasonable _hopes and expectations_\nfrom him are.\n\nI. But for this declaration, it might be thought, that Jesus, pushed\non by an eager ambition of being the founder of a sect, had, for his\n_own_ ends, preached up this alluring doctrine of a future state; or,\nthat, heated by a moral enthusiasm, he had overlooked the mischiefs of\nhis scheme, in contemplation of the _public_ ends, it might serve, as\napplied to the important interests of virtue and religion. Surmises\nof this sort might have sprung up in the minds of men, not prejudiced\nagainst the author of our faith; and would certainly have been cherished\nand malignantly insisted upon by his enemies. But it now appears, that\nhe disclaimed all such views and purposes: that he was cool enough\nto see the iniquity of all religious deception; and just enough to\nacknowledge the cruelty of it, in the present instance. If he had not\ncertainly known the truth of his doctrine, he would have recalled and\ndisowned it. He felt, in his own case, what it was to encounter death\nfor conscience-sake: and he knew what deaths others were to encounter\non the like grounds of persuasion. But _for the joy that was set before\nhim_, how could the shame and agony of that cross be endured? And, if\nthere be no recompence of reward, should he expose to such, or to equal\nsufferings, his honest, unsuspecting, affectionate followers? The instant\nmoment[189], the imposed duty[190], the foreseen event[191], the upright\nmind[192], the feeling heart[193], all conspire to satisfy us, that Jesus\nwas not, could not, be the fraudulent, that is, the insensible, the\nunrelenting, the merciless inventor or publisher of a politic fable, but\na teacher of truth and righteousness sent from God.\n\nThus much for our Lord\u2019s _general character_; which we shall do well to\nkeep in mind, when we meditate on any part of his instructions to us;\nbut more especially, when, for our singular comfort, we attend to his\ngreat doctrine of a BLESSED IMMORTALITY. Our divine Master has in the\nclearest and fullest terms, announced this doctrine to us; and, what is\nmore, he has anxiously removed the only possible doubt, which we could\nhave of its truth, by disclaiming the politic use, which too many others\nhad presumed to make of it.\n\nII. It follows, that we may rely, with confidence, on this invaluable\npromise of a future life; the only source of peace and comfort to the\nmind, without which the disordered scene of this life is inexplicable to\nthe wisest men, and scarce supportable by the happiest; we may, I say,\nrely with safety on this _glorious hope_[194] of immortality, unless\nwe will suppose that Jesus meant to deceive us even then, when he most\ndeliberately and solemnly pledged himself to us for his veracity: a\nsupposition, which is, in truth, as foolish as it is indecent.\n\nAssured therefore, as we are, that our Saviour both taught this doctrine,\nand taught it without the least mixture of guile or dissimulation, let us\nhold fast our expectation of it to the end; and in all the troubles of\nthis life, whether endured for conscience-sake or not, provided only they\nbe such as consist _with_ a good conscience, let us reckon with certainty\non our title to one of those eternal _mansions_, of which there are so\n_many in the house of our heavenly Father_; and that, for the sake and\nthrough the merits of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; the author of our salvation,\nas well as the proclaimer of it: our merciful Redeemer, at once, and\ninfallible Instructor; to whom be all honour, praise, and thanksgiving,\nnow and for ever. Amen.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLIII.\n\nPREACHED MAY 5, 1776.\n\nJOHN xvi. 12, 13.\n\n_I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.\nHowbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will guide you\ninto_ ALL TRUTH: _for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he\nshall hear, that shall he speak: and_ HE WILL SHEW YOU THINGS TO COME.\n\n\nThere is scarce a page in the Gospels, which to an attentive reader may\nnot afford a striking proof of their divine original.\n\nWe have an instance in the words before us: in which, Jesus, now about to\nleave the world, tells the disciples, that he had _many things to say\nunto them_, which were not proper for their ear at this time, but that\nthese, and all other necessary truths should hereafter be imparted to\nthem by a _divine spirit_, to be sent from heaven to be their guide and\ninstructor: that, from _him_, they should learn what, for the present,\nhe forbore to communicate to them, of his views and purposes in the\nreligion, they were to teach mankind; nay, and that this divine _Spirit\nof truth would shew them things to come_.\n\nNow Jesus, I suppose, whatever else may be thought of him, will be\nreadily acknowledged to have been, at least, a discreet and wise man:\nfor without a very high degree of discretion and wisdom, it was plainly\nimpossible for him to do the great things, he did; I mean, to be so\nsuccessful, as he was, in imposing a new faith and religion on mankind.\nThey, who take Christianity for an imposture, must confess, at least,\nthat it was an imposture, artfully contrived, and ably conducted:\notherwise, the effects of it could never have been, what we see they are.\n\nBut would any man, acting on the principles of human wisdom, only, have\ngiven an assurance of this kind (an assurance, too, that seemed not\n_necessary_) to those whom he thought fit to entrust with the care of\nhis imposture, when yet he must certainly know that he could not make\ngood to them what he had promised; and when they, to whom such assurance\nwas given, might easily, and, as he must foresee from his knowledge of\nhuman nature, would certainly abuse it, to selfish ends of their own, not\nconsistent with his, and to the hurt of that very cause, which he wanted\nto promote?\n\nSay, that he had, only, told them\u2014_this divine spirit shall instruct you\nin many things concerning my religion, which I have not, myself, thought\nfit to reveal to you_\u2014would not this general promise have opened a door\nto all sorts of fraud, or extravagance? And could he reasonably expect\nthat any well-concerted scheme of religion, such as was likely to make\nits fortune in the world, would be delivered and established by men,\nwho were commissioned to enlarge his system, at pleasure, and as their\nvarious passions, or fancies, might suggest? And all this, on the same\nauthority with that which he had claimed to himself?\n\nSuppose, they were _honest_, or, _faithful to him_, that is, disposed to\nteach nothing but what should agree to their Master\u2019s doctrine, yet who\ncould answer for their skill or judgment? And, if they were _dishonest_,\nor _unfaithful_, what ruin must not this license of building on his\ndoctrine, have brought on the structure, he had already raised?\n\nWhen Mark Antony was allowed to _forge_ a will for C\u00e6sar, we know the use\nhe made of that liberty. But had he been a better man, than he was, and\ninclined to give out that only for C\u00e6sar\u2019s will, which might probably\nseem to be so, yet his capacity to make a will for C\u00e6sar, in all respects\nuniform, and consistent with that great man\u2019s known views and character,\nmight well be called in question, notwithstanding the whole contrivance\ndepended on himself; much more, if the arduous task had been entrusted to\n_eleven_ persons, besides, of different abilities and dispositions.\n\nStill, the case is more desperate, than we have hitherto supposed.\nBesides a liberty of adding what new consistent doctrines, they pleased,\nto the doctrine of Jesus, the disciples have a greater and more dangerous\npower committed to them, a power of _prophesying_, or foretelling _things\nto come_.\n\nTo see how the case stands on this last supposition, consider, 1. _What\nis implied in this_ PROPHETIC _power_. 2. _What abuses are likely to\nbe made of such an assumed power by_ ANY _men whatsoever_. And, 3.\n_What peculiar abuses of it were to be expected from_ SUCH _men, as the\ndisciples_. Consider, I say, these three particulars, and then, upon the\nwhole, determine for yourselves, whether any man of ordinary prudence\nwould have commissioned his followers to exercise such a power; or, if he\nhad done so, and had been an impostor, whether the event could possibly\nhave been what it clearly was.\n\n1. The _prophetic power_, implies an ability of looking into the future\nhistory of mankind; of foreseeing what revolutions shall happen in states\nand kingdoms; what shall be the issue of depending wars, or counsels:\nwhat the prosperous, or adverse fortune shall be of public, or private\npersons; of those, who have any authority over us, or connexion with us;\nof individuals, or collective bodies of men; of friends, or enemies.\nWhoever has this extraordinary power committed to him, or who thinks he\nhas, has the characters of all men at his mercy; can blast the reputation\nof, the wisest and best men, by a charge of follies and crimes, _not\nyet committed_; or can raise the credit of the worst and weakest, by\ncovering their _future_ life with wisdom and honour. He can intimidate\nthe greatest men by announcing their disgrace and ruin; or exalt the\nmeanest by bringing out to view their successes and triumphs. In a word,\nhe can speak peace or war, fame or infamy, life or death, to any state\nor person, against whom he thinks fit to level this powerful engine of\ninspiration.\n\nAnd as all men, so all _times_, are equally within his reach. He can\npursue the objects of his love or hate through ages to come; and can\nexcite hopes and fears in the breasts of those, who are not to appear on\nthe stage of the world, till many centuries after he has left it, and\nwhen himself has nothing to apprehend, let his predictions take what turn\nthey will, from the shame of detection.\n\nSuch then being the nature of this mighty privilege to foretell _things\nto come_, you cannot but see\n\n2. In the next place, _how liable this power is to be abused by_ ANY _men\nwhatsoever, who have a pretence to assume it_.\n\nMake, if you will, the most favourable supposition, that these pretended\nprophets are _able and learned_: But then, what endless schemes of fraud,\nof policy, of imposture, may ye not expect from the dextrous management\nof this faculty! Revolve with yourselves the history of ancient\ndivination, or modern prophecy, when lodged in the hands of artful and\ndesigning men; and see, what portentous abuses must needs arise from this\ncommission, and yet what certain disgrace and confusion to the memory of\nthose, to whom it is given.\n\nWhat blessings will not men, entrusted with this convenient foresight\nof futurity, lavish on their own friends, or party! And what curses,\nwhat terrors, equally belied in the event, will they not scatter over\nthe persons or affairs of rivals and enemies, for the gratification of a\npresent passion or interest!\n\nSuppose them cool enough to distrust the reality of their inspiration,\nyet the temptation, to make the pretence of it subservient to their\nown views, would be almost irresistible: Or suppose them, on the other\nhand, to prophesy with good faith, this genuine enthusiasm might enable\nthem to act their part more naturally indeed, but, in the end, not more\nsuccessfully.\n\nHad then the Apostles been, each of them, as provident and wise, as\ntheir Master himself, and as much persuaded of their own inspiration, as\nhe could desire them to be, they would not, we may be sure, have been\nencouraged by him, if an impostor only, to think themselves possessed of\na prophetic power, when it must have turned to the ruin of his cause,\non every supposition; I mean, equally on the supposition of its being\nregarded as a real or pretended, power; that is, whether the Apostles\nwere guided by the views of a dishonest policy themselves, or were the\nhonest dupes of their Master\u2019s policy. But there is\n\n3. Still more to be said on the improbability of a wise man\u2019s giving such\nan assurance to men _qualified and circumstanced_, as the Apostles were,\nin other words, _to men of their_ PECULIAR _character and situation_.\n\n1. The _character_ of the Apostles, was that of plain, uneducated,\nilliterate men; men, totally unacquainted with the world, and with\nthose arts, which are necessary to conduct a great design with ability\nand success; men, of good sense, indeed, and of honest minds, but,\nfrom their singular simplicity, only qualified to report what they had\nseen or heared, and by no means provident or skillful enough to round\nand complete a scheme, but half-disclosed by its author, and that half\ndelivered incidentally and by parcels to them, and ill understood.\n\nYet to these men, Jesus declares, that much was wanting to the integrity\nof that religious system, which they were appointed to teach: and that\nall defects in it were to be supplied not by himself, but by a _divine\nspirit_, who should hereafter descend upon them, and LEAD THEM INTO ALL\nTHE TRUTH[195]; nay, who should not only instruct them in such parts of\nhis religion, as he had imperfectly, not at all, explained, but should,\nfurther, open to their view I know not what scenes of futurity, and SHEW\nTHEM THINGS TO COME.\n\nThese magnificent promises, you see, were likely to make a deep\nimpression on the rude minds of the disciples; half-astonished, we\nmay suppose, at the idea of such superior privileges, and more than\nhalf-intoxicated with the conceit of that pre-eminence, which those\nprivileges were to bestow.\n\nTheir implicit faith, too in a beloved and revered Master, would incline\nthem to expect, with assurance, the completion of these promises: And\nthus, every principle, whether of simplicity, vanity, or credulity, would\nmake their presumption violent, and leave it without controul.\n\n2. If we turn, next, to the _situation_ of these men, buoyed up with\nsuch exalted hopes and expectations, we shall find it apt to create a\nfanaticism, which, of itself, might drive them, in the absence of their\npolitic Master, into any excess. These simple, over-weening men were, at\nthe same time, poor, friendless, despised, insulted, persecuted; exposed\nto every injury from the number, power, and malice of their enemies, as\nJesus indeed, had honestly forewarned them; yet stung with the desire of\nfounding a temporal kingdom (contrary, it must be owned, to his express\ndeclaration) and of rising themselves to the first honours of it. Could\nany thing flatter their ambition more, than to be told that they had the\nmodelling of their own scheme left to themselves, under the cover of a\nsupernatural direction? Or, could any thing gratify their resentments,\nall on fire from ill usage, more effectually, than to be assured that\nthe fates of their adversaries, all the secrets of futurity, lay open\nto their view? How oft has oppression turned faith into fanaticism,\nand made prophets of those, whom it only found zealots! And do we think\nthat secular ambition, concurring with religious zeal, in the like\ncircumstances, could have any other issue; especially, when the prophetic\nimpulse was looked for by such zealots, and, on the highest authority,\nactually engaged to them? Or can we, who see the probability, the\ncertainty, of this consequence, conceive so meanly of Jesus, considered\nin the view of a wise man only, as to imagine that He should not be aware\nof it?\n\nAs then it is very unlikely that any politic impostor should make such\na promise, as the text contains, a promise liable to be abused by _any_\nsort of men, and most of all by _those_, to whom it was made; so neither\nis it conceivable that, if a rash enthusiast had authorized his followers\nto rely on such a promise, the issue of it could have been that, which we\ncertainly know it to have been.\n\nFor consider, what were the additions, made to the scheme of Jesus by his\nenlightened followers, and what the prophecies delivered by them? Only,\nsuch additions, as served to open and display the scheme of the Gospel,\nin a manner that perfectly corresponded with the declared views of its\nauthor, or at least no way contradicted them: And only, such prophecies,\nas have either been clearly fulfilled, or not convicted of imposture, to\nthis day.\n\nThen, again, those additions, were directly contrary to the preconceived\nnotions and expectations, of those who made them; such, for instance, as\nthe doctrines concerning _the rejection of the Jews_, _the call of the\nGentiles_, _the abolition of the Mosaic ritual_, and _the spirituality of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom_; doctrines, which, in the life-time of their Master,\nand till enlightened by the promised Spirit of truth, they had either not\nunderstood, or had rejected as false and incredible; yet doctrines, which\nmade the principal part of those _truths_, into which they were _led by\nthe Spirit_.\n\nAnd as to the prophecies, delivered by them, what less could one expect\nfrom so general, and so flattering a promise, than that they should\nbe _numerous_, and, at the same time, replete with _presages of good\nfortune_ to themselves and their party, and with _terrible denunciations\nof wrath_ against their opposers? Yet nothing of all this followed. The\npredictions, they gave out, were indeed so many as to shew that the\npromise was performed to them; yet, on the whole, but _few_; in truth,\nmuch fewer than can be imagined without a particular inquiry into the\nnumber of them: And of these few, the greater part were employed in\ndeclaring the corruptions, that should hereafter be made of the new\nreligion, they were teaching, and the disasters that should befall the\nteachers of it; and scarce _one_, directed against their present and\npersonal enemies.\n\nAll this is astonishing, and unaccountable an the common principles of\nhuman nature, if left to itself in the management of such a faculty as\nthat of prophetic inspiration. And, though, on these principles, it was\nto be supposed, nay, might certainly have been concluded, that a set of\nthe craftiest impostors, or of the honestest fanatics, that ever lived,\nmust, in the end, dishonour themselves by the exercise of such a power,\nand defeat their own purpose; yet, to the surprize of all reflecting men,\nthey have maintained, to this day, their character of veracity, not one\nof their prophecies having fallen to the ground; and, what is more, with\nso many chances against the success of their cause, they have triumphed\nover all opposition, and have established in the world a new religion\nwith that force of evidence, which, as their Master divinely foretold,\n_all their adversaries have not been able to gainsay_.\n\nIn a word, the EVENT has been, and is such, as might be expected, if\nthe divine assistance promised, was actually imparted to them; but\nimprobable in the highest degree, or rather impossible to have taken\nplace, if fraud, or enthusiasm, had been concerned, either in giving, or\nfulfilling, this promise.\n\nIt would be equally an abuse of your patience, and an affront to your\ngood sense, to enlarge farther on so plain a point. From recollecting,\nand laying together, the circumstances, which have been now briefly\ntouched, and pointed out to you, ye will conclude, That, when Jesus gave\nthis extraordinary _promise_ of the Spirit to his followers, he certainly\nknew, that he should be able to make good his engagements to them: And\nthat this _spirit_, being of God, would not be at the command of his\nfollowers, to be employed by them, as their passions, or short-sighted\npolicies, might direct; but would operate in them, according to the good\npleasure and unerring wisdom of HIM, who sent this celestial guide; or,\nin the words of the text, _that he should not speak of himself, but\nwhatsoever he should hear, that_, only, _he should speak_.\n\nNo ill effects would, then, proceed from the privilege of being let\ninto _new truths_, or, of being entrusted with the power of foretelling\n_things to come_. And, from the very consideration, that Jesus had\n_engaged_ to confer such privileges upon his disciples, who, if not\nover-ruled in the use of them, that is, if not truly and immediately\ninspired, would, or rather must, have employed them to the discredit and\nsubversion of his own design; from this single consideration, I say, it\nmay fairly be concluded, especially when we can now compare the assurance\nwith the event, That He himself was the person, he assumed to be, that\nis, A DIVINE PERSON; and his religion, what we believe it to be, THE WORD\nAND WILL OF GOD.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLIV.\n\nPREACHED MAY 29, 1774. T. S.\n\nACTS i. 11.\n\n_Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus,\nwhich is taken up from you, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen\nhim go into heaven._\n\n\nAs the entrance of Jesus into the world, so his departure out of it,\nwas graced, by the ministry of angels. Events, so important as these,\ndeserved, and, it seems, required, to be so dignified. His birth was,\nindeed, obscure and mean; and therefore the attendance of those _flaming\nministers_ might be thought necessary to illustrate and adorn it. But\nhis ascension into heaven was an event so full of glory, that it needed\nnot, we may think, any additional lustre to be thrown upon it by this\ncelestial appearance. For what so likely to raise the ideas and excite\nthe admiration of those, who were witnesses of this event, as the\nfact itself, so sublimely and yet so simply related in these words of\nthe sacred historian\u2014_while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud\nreceived him out of their sight_?\n\nWe may presume, then, that the heavenly host were not sent merely to\ndignify this transaction, in its own nature so transcendently awful;\nbut for some further purpose of divine Providence. And we find that\npurpose expressed very plainly in the words of the text; which contain an\nadmonition of great importance, and direct the attention of the disciples\nto the true end, for which this scene of wonder was displayed before\nthem. For _while they looked stedfastly toward heaven, as he went up, two\nmen stood by them in white apparel; which, also, said, Ye men of Galilee,\nwhy stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up\nfrom you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen him\ngo into heaven._\n\nThe Apostles, we may suppose, were only occupied with the splendor\nof the shew; or they were wholly absorbed in the contemplation of\nits miraculous nature; or they were speculating, perhaps, on the\ncircumstances of it. They were asking themselves, as they gazed (at\nleast, if they had possessed the philosophic spirit of our days, they\nmight be tempted to ask), how the natural gravity of a human body could\npermit its ascent in so light a medium\u2014how a cloud, which is but a sheet\nof air, impregnated with vapours, and made visible by reflected light,\ncould be a fit vehicle of a gross and ponderous substance, and serve\nfor the conveyance of it into the purer regions of \u00e6ther, which we call\n_heaven_\u2014or, what need indeed there was, that Jesus should be carried up\nthither; as if the God, to whom he ascended, were not in every place,\nalike; as if there were any such distinction, as high and low, with\nregard to him; as if all space were not equally inhabited by an infinite\nspirit; and as if his throne were not in the depths beneath, as well\nas the heights above, every where, in short, without respect to our\ndescriptions of place, where himself existed.\n\nFrom such a state of mind, or from such meditations as these, the Angels\ndivert the Apostles, and call off they attention to a point, which\ndeserved it better, and concerned them more nearly. \u2019Tis, as if they\nhad said, \u201cSuspend your admiration of this glorious spectacle; suppress\nall your fond and useless speculations about the causes of this event,\nand learn from us the proper uses of it. Ye have seen your Master thus\nvisibly carried up from you into heaven; by what means, ye need not know,\nand may well forbear to inquire. But this intelligence receive from us\n(and it much imports you to be made acquainted with it); this same Jesus,\nwho is thus gone up from you for a time into heaven, will come again with\nthe same, or even additional glory, to judge the world in righteousness;\nto see what improvements ye have made of all he has done and suffered for\nyou; and to fix your final doom according to your respective deserts, or\nmiscarriages. Think well of this instruction, which so naturally results\nfrom all he said while he was with you on earth, and from what has now\npassed before your eyes; drop all your other inquiries, and resolve them\ninto this, above all, deserving your best attention, how ye may prepare\nyourselves for that day, when _he shall so come, in like manner as ye\nhave seen him go into heaven_.\u201d\n\nThe weight of this angelic admonition was enough to put all curious\nimaginations to flight, and to convince the Apostles then, and all\nbelievers at this day, \u201cThat their true wisdom consists in adverting to\nthe moral and practical uses of their religion, instead of indulging\nsubtle, anxious, and unprofitable speculations concerning the articles\nof it; such especially as are too high, or too arduous for them; such,\nas they have no real interest in considering, and have no faculties to\ncomprehend.\u201d\n\nPermit me then to enforce this conclusion, by applying it to the case of\nsuch persons, and especially of such Christians, as have been, at all\ntimes, but too ready to sacrifice conduct to speculation; to neglect\nthe ends of religious doctrines, while they busy themselves in nice and\nfruitless and (therefore, if for no other reason) pernicious inquiries\ninto the grounds and reasons of them.\n\n1. In the days of ancient paganism, two points in which religion was\nconcerned, chiefly engaged the attention of their wise men; \u201cGOD,\u201d and\nthe \u201cHUMAN SOUL:\u201d interesting topics both; and the more necessary to be\nwell considered, because those wise men had little or no light on these\nsubjects, but what their own reason might be able to strike out for them.\nAnd, had they been contented to derive, from the study of God\u2019s works,\n_all that may be known of him_, by natural reason, _his eternal power\nand Godhead_, and had then glorified him with such a worship, as that\nknowledge obviously suggested; or, had they, by adverting to their own\ninternal constitution, deduced the spirituality of the soul, together\nwith its free, moral, and accountable nature, and then had built on\nthese principles, the expectation of a future life, and a conduct in\nthis, suitable to such expectation; had they proceeded thus far in their\ninquiries, and stopped here, who could have blamed, or, rather, who\nwould not have been ready to applaud, their interesting speculations.\nBut, when, instead of this reasonable use of their understandings in\nreligious matters, they were more curious to investigate the essence\nof the infinite mind, than to establish just notions of his moral\nattributes; and to define the nature of the human soul, than to study its\nmoral faculties; their metaphysicks became presumptuous and abominable:\nthey reasoned themselves out of a superintending providence, in this\nworld, and out of all hope, in a future; they resolved God into fate, or\nexcluded him from the care of his own creation, and so made the worship\nof him, a matter of policy, and not of conscience; while, at the same\ntime, they dismissed the Soul into air, or into the spirit of the\nworld, either extinguishing its substance, or stripping it of individual\nconsciousness; and so, in either way, set aside the concern, which it\nmight be supposed to have in a future state, to the subversion of all\nmorality, as well as of religion.\n\nSuch was the fruit of pagan ingenuity! The philosophers kept _gazing_\nupon God, and the Soul, till they lost all just and useful conceptions\nof either: And thus, as St. Paul says, _they became vain in their\nimaginations; and their foolish heart was darkened_[196].\n\nIf from the Grecian, we turn to the oriental, and what is called,\nbarbaric philosophy, what portentous dreams do we find about angels and\nspirits, or of two opposite principles, contending for mastery in this\nsublunary world; ingeniously spun out into I know not what fantastic\nconclusions, which annihilate all sober piety, or subvert the plainest\ndictates of moral duty? So true is it of all presumptuous inquirers into\nthe invisible things of God, that, _professing themselves wise, they\nbecome fools_!\n\nBut these extravagancies of the heathen world deserve our pity, and may\nadmit of some excuse. The worst is, that, when Heaven had revealed of\nitself what it saw fit, this irreverent humour of searching into the\ndeep things of God, was not cured, but indeed carried to a greater, if\npossible, at least to a more criminal excess; as I shall now shew in a\nslight sketch of the mischiefs, which have arisen, from this audacious\ntreatment even of the divine word.\n\n2. Of the _Jewish_ corruptions I shall say nothing, because they did not\nso directly spring from a licence of speculation in the Rabbins: though\ntheir readiness in admitting unauthorized traditions, and in giving way\nto evasive glosses on the Law, had something of the same character in it,\nand led to the same ill effects.\n\nBut when the _Gospel_, that last and best revelation of the divine will,\nwas vouchsafed to mankind, it might be expected, that the most curious\nwould keep themselves within the bounds of modesty and respect: that they\nwould thankfully receive the information imparted to them, would improve\nit to its right use, and acquiesce in the want of that light, which it\nwas not thought proper to give.\n\nBut, no; the same ungoverned curiosity, that had wantoned so long in\nthe schools of pagan philosophy, rioted, with a still more luxuriant\nextravagance, in the Christian church: as if that unholy flame had\ncatched new strength from the fires of the altar; and the revealed\narticles of our creed had been only so much fresh fuel to feed and\naugment it.\n\nHence, in the days of the Apostles themselves, we hear much of men that,\n_strove about words, to no profit_\u2014of _profane and vain babblings_, that\ntended to nothing but _ungodliness_[197], of arrogant reasoners, who\n_intruded into those things, which they had not seen, vainly puft up by\ntheir fleshly minds[198], of_ extravagant speculatists, who allegorized\nand explained away the fundamental articles of the faith, even the\n_resurrection_ itself[199]: which, in the literal sense, was rejected as\na gross doctrine, not suited to the apprehensions of wise men.\n\nThus the seeds of this evil were early sown, and began to shoot up in\nthose rank heresies, of which a full harvest presently appeared.\n\nThe Gnostic and Manich\u00e6an impieties led the way. Others, of as ill\nname, followed from all quarters; especially from the sects of pagan\nphilosophy; which now pressed into the church, and, in their haste,\nforgot to leave their quibbles and their metaphysicks behind them. The\nevidences of the Gospel had, indeed, extorted their assent: but how ill\nprepared they were for the practice of the new religion, sufficiently\nappeared, when, instead of submitting themselves to the word of God, they\nwould needs torture it into a compliance with their own fancies. Every\nconvert found his own tenets in the doctrine of Jesus: and would be a\nChristian only, on the principles of his pagan theology.\n\nThus the pure and simple faith of the Gospel was adulterated by every\nfolly, which delirious reason could invent and propagate; till, instead\nof _joy and peace in believing_, the destined fruits of Christianity\n_through the power of the holy Ghost_[200], all was dissonance and\ndistraction: contentious pride, and fierce inexorable debate.\n\nThese mischiefs continued very long; when Plato, at one time, and\nAristotle, at another, gave the law to the Christian world; and decided\nin all questions, or rather confounded all, which the subtlety of human\nwit could extract from the plainest articles of the Christian faith.\n\nEven the barbarous ages could not suppress this fatal ingenuity. The\nwits of the school-men teemed with fresh chim\u00e6ras, in the shade of their\ncloysters; as the minds of disturbed visionaries are observed to be more\nthan commonly active and prolific in the dark.\n\nAt length Reason grew ashamed of these more than fruitless altercations:\nand a few divine men, at the Reformation, seemed resolved to take the\nscriptures for their guide, and to shut up all their inquiries in a frank\nand full submission to the written word. Still their former bad habits,\nimperceptibly almost, stuck close to them; for which they had only\nthis excuse to make, that the zeal of their opponents forced them into\ndispute. Necessity, sharpened their invention; their successes, begot\npride; and persecution, engendered hate. In this way, and by these steps,\nit was, that the Protestants grew ingenious and dogmatical. In opposition\nto the church of Rome, they would explain doctrines, of which they\nhad no just ideas; founded on texts of Scripture, which they did not\nunderstand. Presently, as was natural for men in their blind situation,\nthey quarrelled among themselves; and their presumption, we may be sure,\nwas not lessened, but increased, by this misadventure. The issue of all\nthese conflicts was, an inundation of dark and dangerous writings, on\nsubjects[201], which confound human reason, and in which religion has no\nconcern.\n\nIn process of time, however, these evils were, in part, removed.\nPhilosophers[202] examined the scriptures with care, and explained them\nwith reverence: and, what is more, Divines[203] became, in the best sense\nof the word, philosophers. Between them, much light was thrown on the\ngeneral scheme of revelation. Its utility, its necessity, was shewn: its\nsublime views were opened: its evidences were cleared: its doctrines,\nvindicated: and its authority, maintained. Reason saw to distinguish\nbetween its own province, and that of faith: It grew severe in exacting\nits own rights: and modest in prescribing to those of the revelation\nitself.\n\nBut while men of superior sense were thus intent on reforming the bad\ntheology of former times, the rest were too generally involved in it.\nThey were unwilling to give up their darling habit _of gazing up into\nheaven_: that is, of framing, or adopting theories, which had neither\nsolidity, nor use; and of explaining mysteries, which they could not\nunderstand[204].\n\nNor was the effect of this folly, merely to disgrace themselves.\nChristianity was too frequently seen in the false light, in which\nthese rash adventurers had placed it: And men of shallow minds, and\nlibertine principles, were ready enough to take advantage of all\ntheir indiscretions. For on this ground only, or chiefly, the various\nstructures of modern infidelity stand. The presumptuous positions\nof particular men, or churches, are forwardly taken for the genuine\ndoctrines of Christianity: And those positions, being not unfrequently\neither wholly unintelligible, or even contrary to the plainest reason,\nthe charge of nonsense, or of falshood, is, thus, dexterously transferred\non the Gospel itself. And, though the abuse be gross and palpable, yet,\nwhen dressed out with a shew of argument, or varnished over with a little\npopular eloquence, it shall easily pass on ill-inclined, or unwary men.\n\nIt is surely time for us to benefit by this sad experience. We, the\nteachers of religion, should learn, not to be _wise above what is\nwritten_: And you, who would profit in this school, should not think much\nto restrain your curiosity within these bounds, which, not the Scriptures\nonly, but, right reason prescribes.\n\nFor let it not be surmized, that, in deducing this account of the\nmischiefs, which have sprung from ill-directed inquiries into religion,\nmy purpose is in any degree to discountenance the use of reason in such\nmatters. Christianity, if it be indeed divine, will bear the strictest\nexamination; and it is the prerogative of our protestant profession to\nsupport itself on the footing of free inquiry. The way of argument is so\nfar from being hurtful to the cause of revelation, that it is, in truth,\nthe basis and foundation of it. We dishonour, we affront our holy faith,\nif we believe it hath, or can have any other. Only let us take heed,\nthat Reason do her proper work; and that we do not dream, or fancy, or\npresume, when we think we reason.\n\nIn the instances, before given, the fault was in concluding without\npremises, and in arguing without ideas. When men call this _reasoning_,\nthey forget the meaning of the term, as well as mistake the extent of\ntheir own faculties. We cannot reason on all subjects, because there are\nmany subjects which we cannot understand: And by the term, _reasoning_,\nis only meant an act of the mind, which draws right conclusions from\nintelligible propositions. The nature of the infinite Being, the mode of\nhis existence, the \u0153conomy of his providence, are inscrutable to us, and\nprobably to the highest angels. Why then intrude into such things, as no\nman hath seen, or can see? All that remains is, to admit no proposition,\nwhich is not clearly revealed; and, for the rest, to admit, on the\nauthority of the revealer, what must be true, though we cannot, in the\nway of reason, perceive that it is so.\n\nThe inutility of all researches into divine things, without a strict\nadherence to this well-grounded principle, is apparent; the presumption\nof them, is ridiculous; but, above all, the mischiefs of them, are\ndeplorable.\n\nMen bewilder themselves, in inextricable difficulties: they disbelieve,\non incompetent grounds: they give up the Gospel, and, with it, their best\nhopes, for the gratification of the idlest vanity: or they mis-spend\ntheir time in exploring articles of faith, instead of attending, to the\nobvious end and use of them.\n\nTo return to the text, which led us into these reflexions. The disciples\nwere _looking up into heaven_, when they should have been considering how\nto follow him thither. Is not our folly the same, or rather is it not\nmore inexcusable, when gazing, with our weak reason, on celestial things,\nwe neglect the ends, for which a glympse of them is afforded to us? For\nthere is not an article of our creed, which may not make us better, if\nnot wiser: And obedience, that is, _faith working by love_, whatever some\nmay think, is of another value in the sight of God, and of higher concern\nto man, than all knowledge.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLV.\n\nPREACHED JUNE 23, 1776.\n\nSt. MATTH. xiii. 55, 56.\n\n_Is not this the carpenter\u2019s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his\nbrethren, James and Joses and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are not\nthey all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they\nwere offended in him._\n\n\nWe have, in these words, a striking picture of ENVY; which makes us\nunwilling to see, or to acknowledge, any pre-eminence in those, whom we\nhave familiarly known and conversed with, and whom we have been long used\nto regard as our inferiors, or, at most, but on a level with ourselves.\nOur Lord\u2019s neighbours and countrymen, who had been acquainted with him\nfrom his youth, could repeat the names of his whole family, and knew the\nordinary condition, in which they lived, were out of patience to think\nthat, so descended and so circumstanced, he should be grown at once into\ndistinction among them, and should be taken notice of for abilities and\npowers, which they, none of them, possessed.\n\nThis temper of mind, I say, is here very graphically expressed; and it\noperated among the Jews with a more than common malignity, shedding its\nvenom on those, whom not their own industry, but the special favour of\nHeaven had raised above their fellows, and had commissioned to go forth\nwith extraordinary powers (of which they had frequent instances in their\nhistory) for the common benefit of themselves and of mankind. Whence it\nacquired even the authority of a proverbial sentence,\u2014that _a prophet\nhath no honour in his own country, and in his own house_[205].\n\nBut, I mean not to enlarge, at present, on this moral topick. There is\n_another_, and very important use to be made of these words, which is,\nto let us see, \u201chow very small a matter will serve to overpower the\nstrongest evidence of our religion, though proposed with all imaginable\nadvantage to us, when we _hate to be reformed_, or, for any other reason,\nhave no mind to be convinced of its truth.\u201d\n\nThis strange power of _prejudice_ is exemplified in the text, and will\ndeserve our serious consideration.\n\nOur blessed Lord had now given many proofs of the divine virtue, that\nwas lodged in him; and was, therefore, moved, not only by the duty of\nhis office, but, as we may suppose, by that regard which every good man\nhears to his country, to make a tender of his mercies to those persons,\nespecially, among whom he had been brought up. Accordingly, we are\ntold, that he came to his own city of Nazareth, and _preached in their\nSynagogue, insomuch that_ the people of that place _were astonished, and\nsaid, whence hath this man this wisdom_, which appears in his doctrine,\n_and these mighty works_, which we have seen him perform? And then,\ncalling to mind the mean circumstances of his birth and family, before\nrepeated, they expressed their dissatisfaction, or, as the text says,\n_were offended in him_.\n\nBut, were those circumstances a reason for rejecting a _doctrine_, which\nastonished them with its wisdom; and _works_, which they owned to be\n_mighty_, and above the common power of man? Rather, sure, the opposite\nconduct was to be expected; and, because they knew certainly, from the\nmean extraction and education of him who taught and did these things,\nthat he had no means of _acquiring_ his abilities (if they were at all to\nbe acquired) in an ordinary way, they ought, methinks, to have had their\nminds impressed with a full assurance, that they were owing, as they were\nby himself ascribed, to the power of God.\n\nBut, no: rather than admit a conclusion, which hurt their pride, and\ncrossed their foolish prejudices, they stifle the strongest conviction\nof their own minds; and resolve not to receive a prophet, whom they had\nlong desired and expected, who came to them with all the credentials of\na prophet, and with the offer of what they most wanted, the remission\nof their sins, and the inestimable gift of eternal life. And all this,\nbecause the prophet was _the son of a carpenter_, in their own town, and\nbecause his _brethren and sisters_, persons of a mean condition, _were\nall with them_.\n\nWhen we contemplate such a conduct, as this, we are ready to say, that\nit sprung from a more than common perverseness of character, and that\nthe people of Nazareth were more unreasonable and sottish, as the common\nproverb made them to be, than the rest of _Israel_[206].\n\nYet, if we turn our thoughts on the other tribes and cities of that\nnation, on the inhabitants of Jud\u00e6a, and even of Jerusalem, we shall\nfind, that they reasoned no better than the men of Nazareth had done; and\ndiscovered equal, indeed, much the same prejudices as those, by which our\nLord\u2019s own countrymen had been misled.\n\nFor, what else was it to say, as they commonly did, that _no prophet\ncould come out of Galilee_[207]; that he could not be the Messiah,\nbecause his disciples were illiterate fishermen[208], and not Scribes and\nPharisees; because none of their rulers believed on him[209]; because he\nconversed, sometimes, with publicans and sinners[210]; because he did not\nobserve their minute ceremonies or traditions[211]; because he manifested\nhis divine power in healing the sick, and casting out devils, and not in\nbreaking to pieces the Roman empire and restoring the temporal kingdom\nof Israel[212]; because\u2014but I need not instance in more particulars:\nUniversally, the Jews, of all places and denominations, rejected their\nLord and Saviour for reasons, the most absurd and trivial; for reasons,\nthat came from the heart, and not the head, which shewed they were under\nthe power of some contemptible prejudice, and would yield to no evidence,\nunless that was complied with.\n\nStill, \u201cthe Jews, in general, you will say, were unlike other people.\nTell us how the polished Heathens reasoned on the subject of Christ\u2019s\nmission; and whether, when the Gospel was addressed to them, they opposed\nit on the footing of those senseless prejudices, which you have enough\ndisgraced.\u201d\n\nLuckily, I have it in my power to accept this challenge; and to shew you,\non the best authority, that those men of enlightened minds and renowned\nwisdom were as weak in their sophisms, and as childish in their cavils\nagainst the new religion, as the Jews themselves.\n\nWe read in the Acts of the Apostles[213], that St. Paul came to Ephesus,\na rich, learned, idolatrous city of Asia; that he applied himself more\nespecially to the instruction of its Gentile inhabitants; _disputing\ndaily, for two years together, in the school of one Tyrannus_, a teacher\nof rhetorick, or philosophy, as we may suppose, and a convert to the\nfaith of Jesus. That his success was great, we may conclude, both from\nhis long residence, and from _the special miracles_, which he wrought,\namong them. Yet, when _the word of God had grown mightily and prevailed,\na certain silver-smith, who made silver shrines_ for the Goddess of the\nplace, had credit enough with this well instructed city, because its\ntrade was likely to suffer by the downfall of idolatry, to raise such\nan uproar among the people, that the Apostle\u2019s labours were, at once,\noverturned by this powerful argument, and he, himself, compelled to leave\nthem to their old infatuations: which was much such treatment, as Jesus\nhimself had received from the Gadarenes; who, because he had permitted\nthe devils, ejected out of one of their people, to enter into a herd\nof swine, and to destroy them, would not be saved at this expence, and\nrequired him, but civilly indeed, _to depart out of their coasts_. Now,\nwas that _craft_, or this _husbandry_, a matter to be put in competition\nwith the saving of their souls, which they had reason to expect from the\npreaching of Paul and Jesus? Or, is it not clear, that a petty interest,\nthat is, a sordid _prejudice_, prevailed against the most precious hopes,\nsupported by the fullest evidence?\n\nBut these were _prejudices_ of the ignorant vulgar. Let us see, then,\nwhat success St. Paul had in a nobler scene, among wits and sages, men\nof refined sense and reason, in the head-quarters of politeness and\ncivility, in the eye of Greece itself, in one word, Athens[214]. Here,\nthe great Apostle, who had the charity, and the ability, to _make himself\nall things to all men_, encountered their ablest philosophers; reasoning\nwith them, even before their revered court of Areopagus, on their own\nfavourite topics of _God, and the Soul_, in a strain of argument, which\nwas clearly unanswerable; and concluding his weighty apology with _Jesus\nand the Resurrection_. But what was the effect of all this truth on the\nminds of these liberal heathens? Why the text says\u2014_when they heared of\nthe resurrection of the dead, some_ (that is, the Epicureans) _mocked_;\nand why? because their philosophy admitted no future state: while\n_others_ (the Stoics) _said, We will hear thee again of this matter_;\nbut, for as poor reason, as the other, because their philosophy taught I\nknow not what of a certain renovation of the world, which, for the credit\nof their sect, they were half inclined to confound with the Christian\nresurrection. You see, in both parties, the power of prejudice; where\nyet the occasion was the most interesting, the hearers the most capable,\nthe ability or the speaker, independently of his assumed inspiration,\nunquestionably great, and where the conclusion, (so carelessly dismissed)\nwas, after all, a question of FACT, which had no dependance on the\nfanciful tenets of either party.\n\nI should weary you and myself, should I carry on this deduction through\nthe following ages of the Christian church; and shew, as I might easily\ndo, that the ablest men of science, who opposed Christianity, did it on\ngrounds no better than those of these Athenian sophists. We see what\nthese grounds were, in the fragments, that remain to us, of many ancient\nunbelievers[215], men, the most acute and learned of their times; while\nyet every man of sense, that now reads and considers their objections,\nwill own, whether he be himself a Christian or not, that they are\naltogether weak and frivolous, and have the face not so much of sound,\nor even colourable arguments, as of faint and powerless prepossessions\nagainst unwelcome truth.\n\nI shall only instance in _one_ of these prepossessions, which you think\nprodigious. The Roman empire, labouring under its own vices, and many\n_physical_ evils, which then lay heavy upon it, experienced, in the\nfourth century, that reverse of fortune, which, in its turn, the greatest\nnations must expect. But by this time Christianity had spread itself\nthrough all the provinces, and was become the religion of the state. In\nthese circumstances, the Heathens, very generally, not the rabble only,\nbut the gravest and wisest of the Heathens; ascribed these disasters\nto the abolition of idolatry; and thought it an unanswerable argument\nagainst the faith of Jesus, that it did not maintain their empire in\nthat degree of splendour and prosperity, to which, in the days of pagan\nworship, it had happily been raised. And this miserable superstition,\nwhich we now only pity, or, perhaps, smile at, made so deep an impression\non the minds of men, that the greatest of the ancient fathers, and\nparticularly St. Austin[216], were scarce able, with all their learning\nand authority, to bring it into contempt.\n\nSuch was the power of _ancient_ prejudice against the Christian religion.\nBut I hasten to set before you, in few words, what its tyranny has been\nin _later_ times.\n\nThe accidental and temporary commotions, which reformed religion\nproduced in our western world, furnished in the minds of many, a notable\n_argument_ against the cause of Protestantism, which, when taken up and\nimproved, as it soon was, by state-policy, had, indeed, a fatal influence\non its success. But, even as to Christianity itself, that day-spring of\nknowledge, which broke upon us at the Reformation, and, as they say,\nhas been brightening from that time to this, could not disperse those\nphantoms of prejudice, which are forever haunting the human mind.\n\nMen, who piqued themselves on their sagacity, presently started up,\nand said, that, because popery had been found to be an imposture,\nChristianity was so too; and because the legendary tales of the\ncloysters had been convicted of falshood, that the Scriptures themselves\ndeserved but little regard. And when afterwards these suspicions gave\nway to sober criticism and learned inquiry, _prejudices_ still arose,\nin various shapes, against the EVIDENCES, and the DOCTRINES of the\nGospel-Revelation. We were told, that the _prophecies_ proved nothing,\nbecause some of them were too obscure, and others too plain. Could both\nthese objections come from the oracle, Reason? Or, is it so much as\nlikely, that either of them did so? when, for any thing it could tell,\nboth the clearness, and the obscurity might be suitable to the occasion,\nand each, be fit, in its place. Then again, there were others bold enough\nto deny the existence of _miracles_, not, because many have been forged,\nbut because none can be true. Was this, too, the voice of Reason? or, is\nnot St. Paul\u2019s appeal to common sense enough to disgrace this fancy to\nthe end of the world\u2014_Why should it be thought a thing incredible with\nyou that_ GOD _should raise the dead_?[217] God, who surely has _power_\nto do this, or other miracles, when his _wisdom_ sees fit.\n\nThe _contents_ of the Gospel have also been treated, I do not say with as\nlittle respect, but with as little shew of reason and argument, as the\nevidences of it.\n\nFor instance, it was current, not long ago, that \u201cChristianity was as old\nas the Creation;\u201d the meaning of which wise saying was, that Christianity\ncould not be true, because the _moral_ part of it was such, as nature\ntaught, and had at all times been able to discover by its own light.\nAdmit the fact: what follows? That therefore a divine revelation needs\nnot repeat and could not occasionally enforce the laws of nature. Is\nreason, pure unmixed reason, accustomed to trifle at this rate?\n\nBut the complaint now is, that nature does not teach the _doctrinal_ part\nof the Gospel. And what then? Was it not equally to be expected that what\nconcerns the essence and counsels and dispensations of God should be a\nsecret to nature, unassisted by revelation, as that our practical moral\nduties should lie open to its view? And, if the force of this question\nbe not generally felt, there is no doubt, I think, but it will, in a\nshort time. For, it is to be observed of all these idle cavils, that they\npresently vanish one after another; and, when each has had its day, is,\nthenceforth, exploded even by unbelievers themselves.\n\nBut, \u2019tis time to come to a conclusion of this matter. The purpose of all\nI have said is, only, this, to shew, what weak and idiot prejudices have,\nat all times, been taken up against Christianity, and how generally they\nhave been mistaken by the acutest of its enemies, for reasons of much\nweight.\n\nAnd, if all, who hear me, be led by this experience, to suspect the\ninfirmity of their own minds; if, having seen the disgraceful issue of so\nmany fancies, which for a time have passed for shrewd _arguments_, but\nhave, afterwards, appeared to be nothing more than childish _prejudices_,\nthey can be brought to mistrust those, that occur to themselves; if, in\na word, they can be induced to question the pertinence and force of what\nthey too easily consider in the light of objections to Christianity, and\nto argue soberly and cautiously at least, if they will needs try their\nskill in arguing against it; the end, I have in view, will be answered,\nand neither my pains, nor your attention, will be thrown away on this\ndiscourse.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLVI.\n\nPREACHED FEBRUARY 4, 1776.\n\nJAMES iv. 7.\n\n\u2014_Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you._\n\n\nThat there are Angels and Spirits, good and bad; that, at the head, of\nthese last, there is ONE, more considerable and malignant, than the rest,\nwho in the form, or under the name, of a _Serpent_, was deeply concerned\nin the fall of man, and whose _head_, as the prophetic language is, the\nSon of man was, one day, to _bruise_; that this evil spirit, though that\nprophecy be, in part, completed, has not yet received his death\u2019s wound,\nbut is still permitted, for ends unsearchable to us, and in ways which\nwe cannot particularly explain, to have a certain degree of power in this\nworld, hostile to its virtue and happiness, and sometimes exerted with\ntoo much success; all this is so clear from Scripture, that no believer,\nunless he be, first of all, _spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit_, can\npossibly entertain a doubt of it.\n\nThe subject, indeed, in its full extent, cannot be discussed at this\ntime, nor conveniently, perhaps, in this place. But it may not be\nimproper to make some general reflexions upon it; such as may serve to\nrectify your APPREHENSIONS of the doctrine itself, which, as I said,\nis truly scriptural, and to suggest, at the same time, the MORAL AND\nRELIGIOUS USES, we ought to make of it.\n\n1. An opinion prevailed in the East very early, and was probably derived\nfrom some still more ancient tradition of the fall, corrupted, and\nmisunderstood, that two, equally great and independent beings, a good\nand a bad, shared the government of the world between them; that these\nbeings, of directly opposite characters, carried on a perpetual war with\neach other, crossed each other\u2019s designs and operations, and, as either\nprevailed, produced the good or evil, the happiness or misery, of this\nlife.\n\nThis opinion was, afterwards, taken up by some, who called themselves\nChristians; and was especially applied by those, who loved to\nphilosophize (as too many did, and, at all times, have been prone to\ndo) on the secrets of divine Providence, to the solution of that great\nquestion, concerning the _origin of natural and moral evil_.\n\nNow, to this notion some countenance, it is thought, has been given by\nthe scriptural doctrine of the Devil, who is spoken of, as _the Prince of\nthis world_[218], as the _Prince of the power of the air_[219], as _the\nGod of this world_[220], and in other terms of the like sort, denoting as\nwell the _power_, as malignity, of this evil Being.\n\nBut, though these terms are, some of them, very strong, and certainly\nimply, not the existence only, but the extensive agency and influence,\nof this wicked Spirit, yet there is no pretence or colour for supposing\nthat any thing like an equality to the God of heaven and earth, or an\nindependency upon him, was intended to be expressed by them. For it is\nmanifest, that no writings in the world exalt our ideas of that God so\nhigh, or set forth his supreme irresistible and sovereign dominion in\nso strong and decisive terms, as the Jewish and Christian scriptures.\nAnd with regard to the particular evil being under consideration, he\nis represented as _trembling_[221] at the very apprehension of the\nomnipotent Creator, as sentenced by his justice[222], and reserved\nfor the execution of it[223]; as exercising a partial, a precarious,\na limited power in this world, working only in the _children of\ndisobedience_[224], and in them, consequently, no longer than they\ncontinue to deserve that character; and baffled in his attempts, not only\nby the Son of God, but by the _resistance_[225], by the _prayers_[226],\nby the _faith_[227], of Christians; as a rebel indeed, yet a rebel cast\nout[228] and disabled[229], and compelled to be an instrument, like all\nother things, in the hands of the Almighty[230].\n\nBut nothing shews more clearly, how abhorrent the spirit of Christianity\nis from the Manich\u00e6an doctrine, than the care that is taken throughout\nthe Gospel-history to set forth the triumphs of Christ over the kingdom\nof Satan, in _casting out devils_; of which the instances are so many,\nand so circumstantially described, as if our Lord\u2019s main or sole purpose\nhad been to expose and explode that great impiety. He not only, himself,\ncommanded, by a word, the devils to go out of the possessed, who\naccordingly obeyed him, and, in departing, deprecated that power[231],\nwhich they knew he had over them; but he, likewise, gave the same\nauthority to his disciples, who went forth with his commission, and\n_returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto\nus, through thy name_[232]. On which occasion, _he said unto them_, as\nexulting in his dominion over the enemy, and in the rapid, instantaneous,\nirresistible effect of it, _I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from\nheaven_[233].\n\nThus much may suffice to shew, that, though the Gospel affirms the\nexistence of evil spirits, and of one eminently so, yet that it gives\nno countenance to the doctrine of the two principles; as if the evil\none were independent of the good, or that Satan could have the madness\nto think of rivalling the power of God, and of entering into a direct\nformal contest, as it were, with the Almighty. Whatever of this sort has\nbeen said, or insinuated, contradicts the express testimony, indeed,\nthe whole tenour, of holy scripture, and is nothing but poetry, or\nmisrepresentation.\n\n2. Still, on the face of that account, which Scripture itself gives, it\nmust be owned, that the power of Satan is great and even dreadful.\n\nThat he was permitted, in our Saviour\u2019s time, to vex, and, in\nvarious ways, torment the BODIES of men, is clear from the number of\n_possessions_, we read of in the Gospel; which though some have laboured\nto explain away (as they have, indeed, the personality of the Devil\nhimself) by reducing what is said of his agency to a mere figure of\nspeech, yet I do not find that their attempts have, hitherto, been, or\nare likely to be, successful.\n\nThat he was, also, permitted to lay such trains, and contrive such\nmeasures, as had a fatal effect, sometimes, on the FORTUNES of men, not\nof those only, who were the immediate instruments of his malice, but of\ngood and innocent men, who stood at a distance from him, we see by the\nsad catastrophe of that council, which _he put into the heart of Judas\nto betray his master_[234]; first, in the untimely death of the traitor\nhimself, and then, by a series of connected events, in the crucifixion\nof the holy Jesus; and by several other instances. And, that he still\nretains this last power, as formidable as it truly is, must be concluded,\nif it be true, as we shall presently see it is, that he insinuates\nhimself into the minds of bad men, and is concerned in exciting and\npromoting their wicked purposes. But, whether he be allowed to tyrannize\nover the bodies of men, is more problematical. That, for any thing we\nknow, he may operate in the way of _possession_, I do not see on what\ncertain grounds any man can deny: that he does so, I would not affirm,\nbecause the Scripture, our only guide as to what respects the agency\nof spirits, is silent in that matter. But the inquiry is of the less\nmoment, because, since the gift of _discerning_ spirits hath ceased in\nthe church, we have no means of distinguishing between _possessions_ and\n_natural disorders_; and, because, if we had, there is no known cure, or\nantidote, for them.\n\nHad this been considered, all the mischiefs which have arisen from\nthe trade of witchcraft and diabolism, would have been prevented. For\nthey have proceeded, not from the supposed possibility of possessions,\nbut from a fraudulent pretence of knowing when they take place, and\nfrom a superstitious belief of certain charms or spells, which may be\napplied, with effect, to the removal of them. Whereas, the fact is\nnot cognizable by us, the symptoms, whether of the natural disorder,\nor of the pret\u00e6rnatural infliction, being equivocal; and Christianity\nacknowledges no power in words, or ceremonies, to exorcise evil spirits.\nThe only exorcism, which is now permitted to Christians, is that of\nfaith and repentance, that is, of a good life; which every man may, and\nshould apply, when it is needful, to his own case, and which, in that\napplication, can surely do no hurt to himself, or others.\n\nAnd, with this explanation, I leave the matter of _possessions_. As I\nhave no authority to affirm, that there _are_, now, any such, so neither\nmay I presume to say, with confidence, that there are _not_ any.\n\nBut, then, with regard to the influence of evil spirits at this day upon\nthe SOULS of men, I shall take leave to be a great deal more peremptory.\nFor this influence is so constantly supposed in the Gospel; there are\nso many admonitions, cautions, advices, relating to it; there are so\nmany warnings given us by Christ and his Apostles against the snares,\nthe wiles, the devices, the depths, of Satan, and these, conveyed in the\nform of general precepts, plainly calculated for the use of Christians\nin all ages; it is so expressly said, in Christ\u2019s own parable of the\nsower, that the _tares_, that is, bad men, _are sown by the devil_, and\nthat this husbandry will be carried on by him to the end of the world;\nit is so apparent, that his empire over bad men is exercised in the way\nof temptation and seduction, by putting bad purposes into their minds,\nand filling their hearts with corrupt imaginations and intentions;\nit is, besides, so evident that we are continually in danger of this\ntemptation, by that clause in the Lord\u2019s prayer, the daily prayer of all\nChristians\u2014_deliver us from the evil one_[235]\u2014for such is the proper\nsense of these words, which we translate, _deliver us from evil_\u2014All\nthis, I say, is so manifest to every one who reads the scriptures, that,\nif we respect their authority, the question, concerning the reality of\ndemonic influence upon the minds of men, is clearly determined.\n\nNay, there are many instances, in history, and common life, of\nprodigious, almost unimaginable wickedness, strangely conceived and\nexecuted, which, if they do not prove this doctrine, in the way of\nsensible experience, perfectly fall in, and harmonize with it. It seems,\nas if the soul of some men were demoniacal, as the bodies of others\nhave been. Let me appeal to yourselves. Suppose that a person, duly\ncommissioned for that purpose, had dislodged as many devils from Nero or\nC\u00e6sar Borgia, as our Saviour did from the poor unhappy man of Gadara,\nwould this exorcism have surprized you more in the former case, than\nthe latter? or would not this miracle have furnished us with a better\naccount, than we can now give, of the transcendant wickedness, which\n_possessed_ the hearts of those monsters?\n\nIndeed, in the simpler ages, our forefathers, who read the scriptures,\nand believed what they read, constantly ascribed any crime, with which\nthey charged another, to _the instigation of the devil_; as you may\nsee from the language of those forms, which are used, in criminal\nprosecutions to this day: and, if those charges be vow considered as\n_mere forms_, it was not always so; and a better reason will be required,\nthan can be presently given, why any Christian should so conceive of\nthem.\n\n3. But to all this it be said, \u201cthat the doctrine, here laid down, as\nscriptural, is strange and incredible; that it makes the virtue and\nhappiness of men depend on others, and not themselves; that it supposes\na power, adverse to the great Creator and Governor, and able, on many\noccasions, to prevail against him, which, degrades both his _sovereignty_\nand his _wisdom_; and that, above all, it represents weak simple men as\nexposed to the practices of great and subtle tempters, which overturn all\nour ideas of the divine _justice_ and _goodness_.\u201d\n\nThe objection might be expressed in more words, but you see the drift and\nforce of it. Now, in answer, it would be enough to say, that, let the\ndifficulties be what they will, the doctrine is scriptural. But then, as\nto those difficulties themselves, I must further say, that they are not\npeculiar to this doctrine, as revealed in scripture, but bear equally\nagainst the natural doctrine of God\u2019s moral government.\n\nFor do we not see that we all of us depend in a great measure, for\nthe virtue and happiness we possess, on the conduct of others? Can we\nlook about us, and not perceive an order of beings, I mean, _wicked\nmen_, opposing themselves to the will of God, traversing his righteous\npurposes, and prevailing, for a time at least, against his primary\nintentions? Do they not pervert, corrupt, destroy multitudes every day;\nand are not the weak and simple permitted to fall into the snares of the\nwise and crafty? Do not these things evidently take place in our world,\nand is it thought any derogation from the attributes of God that they\nshould be allowed to do so? Are not men, too oft, a sort of devils to\neach other, and can we wonder that vice and misery are much in the power\nof such agents? Yes, but _spiritual unseen_ agents!\u2014Does that make any\nmighty difference? Is it necessary to suppose that _spirits_, of whatever\nrank, are privileged from abusing their free-will, and from being\nperverse and wicked, as we see men are? And, what if they are _unseen_?\nHave we reason to expect, from the present constitution of things, that\nwe should suffer only from the practices of known and visible tempters?\nAs if much of the vice and wretchedness of this life did not come upon\nus by surprize, as we may say, and when we think little of the cause, or\nthe agent! A lye, flies in the dark, and misleads many into errors, and\neven crimes. A libel, gets abroad, nobody knows from whom, and yet shall\ntempt, perhaps drive, unwary multitudes, into rebellion. How many plots\nof wickedness are laid and succeed, when the plotter is out of sight and\nnot so much as suspected! Nay, a certain cast of mind, or temperament of\nbody, things, wholly unknown and unthought of by most men, shall, without\ngreat care and circumspection, be fatal to our virtue. Even the air, we\nbreathe, (which, like the _prince of the power of the air_, is to us\ninvisible) has a secret, and yet, sometimes, powerful influence on our\npassions. And shall we still disbelieve the seduction of an evil spirit,\nbecause he steals insensibly upon us?\n\nBut the true answer to all objections of this sort, whether men or devils\nbe the tempters, is, that neither shall prevail, but by our own fault,\nby some carelessness, or wilful corruption of our own hearts, which are\nalways sufficiently admonished, that the enemy is at hand, when evil\nthoughts, however produced, begin to stir in them. Then is the time to\nwatch, and _resist_: and our resistance, the text tells us, will not\nbe in vain. And what though legions of spirits lay siege to us! We may\ncall _more than twelve legions of angels_, even the holy Spirit of God\nhimself, to our assistance, if we please; for _greater is_ HE THAT IS IN\nUS, _than he that is in the world_[236]. So _faithful is God_, after all\nour impious surmises and distrust of his gracious providence, _who will\nnot suffer us to be tempted above that we are able_, though Satan himself\nbe the tempter, _but will with the temptation also_, if we be careful to\ndo our part, _make a way for us to escape_[237].\n\n4. And this being the case, all objections to the doctrine here\ninculcated, fall to the ground; so that I have only to remind you, in two\nwords, (for the time will not allow many) of the _moral and religious\nuses_, we ought to make of it.\n\nI shall but mention ONE, of each sort.\n\n1. In a RELIGIOUS view, the belief of this doctrine is of the utmost\nimportance: for the whole scheme of Redemption is founded upon it. For\n_therefore_ Christ came into the world, and suffered upon the cross,\n_that, through death_, as St. Paul says, _he might destroy him, that had\nthe power of death, that is, the_ DEVIL[238]. And, universally, _for this\npurpose_ (I quote the words of St. John) _the Son of God was manifested,\nthat he might destroy the works of the_ DEVIL[239]. It concerns us,\nthen, infinitely, to take heed lest, by denying, or questioning, or\nexplaining away, the existence and agency of the evil spirit, we subvert\nthe foundation of our faith, detract from the glory of our Saviour\u2019s\npassion, and unthankfully _despise the riches of his goodness_ in dying\nfor us: nay, and lest we blaspheme the Holy Ghost; who was given to\n_help our infirmities_[240], to _strengthen us with might in the inner\nman_[241], and therefore to save us, from the power of _that spirit,\nwhich worketh in the children of disobedience_[242].\n\n2. In a MORAL view it is, also, of great importance, that we entertain\nright notions on this subject.\n\nI know that the _world_ and the _flesh_ are powerful enemies enough, and\nthat we need not wish to signalize our courage by a contest with any\n_other_.\n\nBut if there _be_ another, we are concerned to know what our danger is,\nand to provide against it. Security is generally fatal; especially when\nthe strength of the enemy is greater than we take it to be. Therefore,\nlet us learn from scripture, what that strength is; and let us use all\ndiligence in _resisting_ (as we have long since engaged to do) not the\n_world_ and the _flesh_ only, but also, the DEVIL. This is the advice of\nthe text\u2014_Resist the_ DEVIL. And then, too, is the advice of the Apostle\nPeter\u2014_Be sober, be vigilant; become your adversary, the_ DEVIL, _as a\nroaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour_[243] (words, by\nthe way, which put the _personality_ of the tempter out of all question);\n_Whom resist_, says he, _stedfast in the_ FAITH; under the protection of\nwhich shield, _we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of_ THE\nWICKED[244].\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLVII.\n\nPREACHED MARCH 29, 1772.\n\nPROV. xvi. 6.\n\n_By the fear of the Lord, men depart from evil._\n\n\nAll the authority of Solomon\u2019s name and wisdom will, I doubt, be no more\nthan sufficient to procure respect to this observation; which some may\nconsider as a _trite and vulgar truth_, scarce deserving their regard;\nwhile others, perhaps, will not so much as allow it to be a truth at\nall, but indeed a _vulgar mistake_, arising out of the narrow views of\nignorant or superficial declaimers. It may be slighted by one set of men,\nas conveying _no_ information, and by another, as conveying a _wrong_\none.\n\nLet me attempt then to rescue the sacred text from both these\nimputations. Permit me to shew you, that the observation, it contains, is\nneither so generally received, as to make all further discourse about it\nfrivolous and unnecessary; nor yet, on the other hand, of so questionable\na nature, as to justify the scorn with which it is sometimes rejected.\n\nI. To those, who are such fastidious hearers of the word, as to disregard\nan important truth, because repeatedly inforced upon them, I might reply\nthat such truths can never be insisted upon too much, that our duty is to\ninculcate them, _in season, and out of season_.\n\nBut the fact is mistaken. We are so far from nauseating our hearers, with\na too common and superfluous truth, when we remind them perpetually,\nthat, _by the fear of God, men depart from evil_, that, on the contrary,\nvery many want to be informed, or at least convinced, of it.\n\nWhat the text affirms, is, that the _fear of God_, or the RELIGIOUS\nPRINCIPLE, is the proper guide of life. But look now into the _world_,\nat large: there the acknowledged rule of life, is FASHION. Look into the\n_civil or political_ world: there the boasted rule of life, is THE LAW\nOF THE MAGISTRATE. Look into the _learned_ world: there too commonly the\nonly rule of life is each man\u2019s own reason, or what he proudly calls\nPHILOSOPHY.\n\nAnd will it now be said that _the fear of God_, is a principle too stale\nand too unquestioned to be discoursed upon and recommended to you from\nthis place, when we see so large and so considerable a part of the world\nactuated by one or other of these different and discordant principles?\nBut neither\n\nII. Is the truth, though far enough from being generally received, so\nslightly grounded as to justify any man in the contempt of it.\n\nIt is a truth, taught of God, and revered by all wise men. It has nature,\nand reason, and experience on its side; and is only combated by the\nfolly, the short-sighted policy, or lastly, the pride, of half-thinking\nand presumptuous men.\n\nFor to give, now, the godless principles, I before mentioned, a short and\nseparate examination.\n\n1. Tell _the man of the world_, that the religious principle is that by\nwhich alone he ought to govern himself, and you are presently told of the\npower and prerogatives of FASHION.\n\n\u201c_The fear of God_, he will say, may be the proper rule of monks and\nhermits; but must be qualified, at least, in many respects, by such\nas live in the world and mix in the society of it. They who have to\nconverse with mankind, are to accommodate themselves to their notions\nand practices: they are to think with the rest of the world, or at least\nthey are to act with them: they are to found their moral systems on the\nliberal and enlarged basis of approved use or custom. Their observation\nof human life must inform them of the ways that men take to conciliate\nthe good will of their fellows, to prosecute their own advantages in\nthe world, and to acquire the confidence and esteem of that society, in\nwhich they are stationed. What they find to be the rule of others, must\nbe a rule to themselves. To do otherwise is not weakness, only: It is,\nbesides, arrogance, incivility, inhumanity.\u201d\n\nAll this is thought plausible by some men; and taken together, it must\nbe owned, forms a very easy and commodious system: but how consistent\nwith conscience, with duty, and with common sense, they will do well\nto consider. For if _fashion_ only be to regulate our conduct in all\ncases, I ask not what becomes of piety, but of humanity itself, I mean of\nthose offices which we owe to others and to ourselves, and which reason\ndictates to us in every situation. Custom, you will say, is practical\nreason. But what! To be led blind-fold by the prevailing practice,\nwhatever it be, what is it but to renounce our intelligent nature, and to\nlive at hazard, and without reason? Further still: If it be sufficient to\ndo as we see others _creditably_ do, without examining any farther, we\nshall often find ourselves involved, I do not say in the most irrational,\nthe most inconsistent, but the most horrid practices. Then, killing with\nmalice and with forethought, if the point of honour prevail, will be no\n_murder_: And, adultery, if the law of politeness so ordain, shall hide\nits atrocious nature under the mask of _gallantry_: Then shall society\nat large become a scene of fraud and rapine; good faith, shall be termed\n_simplicity_, and fair dealing, _folly_.\n\nGo now, and say that _the fear of God_ is a needless restraint on free\nspirits; and count the advantages which ye have reason to promise to\nyourselves, from acknowledging no other guide of life, but _imperious\nfashion_!\n\n2. A graver set of men come next, and tell us, \u201cThat _fashion_ is indeed\na very uncertain guide of life: But that LAW, the result of the public\nwisdom, armed with the public force, is an adequate rule of human action;\nthat the legislator\u2019s province is to enact such salutary laws, and the\nmagistrate\u2019s duty, to carry them into execution, as shall be sufficient\nto secure the peace and order of society; And that every other rule of\nlife is at once unnecessary and ineffectual: _unnecessary_, because the\ninterests of virtue are amply provided for by the wisdom of law; and\n_ineffectual_, because no other principle has force enough to exact\nobedience: That, in particular, _the fear of God_ is too remote a\nconsideration to restrain the tumultuous passions of men, which are held\nin subjection by nothing but the instant terrors of civil justice; in a\nword, that where the law of the state is duly enforced, there is no need\nof other restraints; and that, lastly, to lay a stress on _the religious\nprinciple_ is to weaken the operation of law, as it opens a door to\nfanaticism and superstition.\u201d\n\nThis plea of the politician receives an apparent force from this certain\ntruth, That law is indeed of indispensable necessity, and that the\ngeneral virtue and happiness of a people cannot be maintained without it.\nWe join him therefore very cordially in this encomium on civil justice;\nbut must remind him, withal, that neither is the religious principle\nsuperseded by it, nor can civil justice itself maintain its due course,\nwithout the support of the religious principle: That, when the authority\nof law has done its best, there will be much for religion to controul\nand regulate; _much_, that is not within the reach of law, and without\nits jurisdiction: That _the fear of the Lord_ penetrates deeper and\nfarther, than the sword of the magistrate; and that, even within his own\nprovince, all his policy and all his power will take a very imperfect\neffect, without the concurrence of a higher principle; as he himself\nis abundantly convinced from the necessity of fortifying his own most\nimportant constitutions, by the religion of an oath; which is nothing\nelse but an appeal to the fear of God, under a sense of its being a\nneedful supplement to the fear of the magistrate.\n\nYet society, they say, is entirely upheld by the authority of law; at\nleast, the world may go on very well, by virtue of that only. Yes; It\nmay go on, as we see it does, full of open violence, which all its\nterrors cannot restrain; and of secret frauds, for which it cannot so\nmuch as project a remedy: It may go on, indeed, but polluted by vices of\nall sorts, which are not the objects of law, and even by crimes, which\nare often too strong for it: It may go on indeed, till the religious\nprinciple be quite effaced from the minds of men (if we may have leave\nfor a moment, to put so desperate, and, thank God, so impossible a case);\nbut, when that dreadful time comes, society itself, with all its bulwark\nof laws, must inevitably be swept away with it.\n\nUniversal history bears testimony to this awful truth; there being no\naccount of any state on the face of the earth, which could ever support\nitself in general virtue, or general happiness, by the mere force of its\ncivil institutions. And how should it be otherwise, when the fear of God\nis requisite to enforce the law, as well as to observe it; to supply the\nstate with faithful magistrates, as well as with obedient subjects?\n\nIf then this vital principle of religion, so necessary to the\nconservation of all states, cannot be kept free from some mixture of\nfanaticism or superstition, we are surely to endure the inconvenience,\nas we can, rather than put the interests of society to hazard by\nsuspending them all on the weak and false supports of an irreligious\npolicy.\n\n3. Lastly, the PHILOSOPHER\u2019S plea, though specious at first sight, is of\nall others the weakest. For _fashion_, if it chance to be on the side of\nvirtue, will be punctually followed: And the sword of the _magistrate_\ncan, in part, at least, enforce obedience. But what coercive power is\nthere in _philosophy_? It may see and determine right: but who, or\nwhat shall compell this supreme directress of life to observe its own\ndeterminations? \u201cThe fitness, it may be said, of those determinations\nthemselves; the very reason of the thing being the proper restraint of\nreasonable natures.\u201d Still the question returns, What if I am disposed\nto throw off this restraint? I act against conviction, indeed, and am\nself-condemned, which to a liberal mind is no small punishment. But\nlook into the world, and see if that punishment be sufficient to induce\nthe bulk of mankind, nay the gross body of philosophers themselves, _to\ndepart from evil_.\n\nAnd what, after all, is this magnified reason? One man admits no other\nrule of life but _abstract truth_, or what he calls _the differences of\nthings_: Another, will hear of none, but an instinctive _moral sense_:\nAnd a third, entrenches himself within the narrow circle of _private\nhappiness_. These several systems have been laid down, each in its turn,\nas the only proper basis of moral action: But could the patrons of them\nbe made to agree in any one; or could their several schemes be made, as\nperhaps they might, to consist together: still, they could only serve to\nacquaint us what the nature of virtue is; they do but slenderly provide\nfor the practice of it.\n\nLet the philosophers, then, debate this matter among themselves. It is\nenough for _us_ to learn of Solomon, _to fear God_: To fear HIM, who is\neverywhere and essentially present; who is conscious to all our actions\nand all our thoughts; from whose knowledge there is no escape, from whose\njustice there is no appeal, and to whose power there is no hope, or\npossibility of resistance.\n\nWith this principle, an unquestioned principle of reason, if there be\nany, deeply rooted in the mind, we have indeed an adequate rule of life;\nor, what is better, a controuling motive to put in practice whatever rule\nof life we chuse to follow. Moral systems, taken by themselves, are poor\nineffective things; even virtue\u2019s self is but a name, till the religious\nprinciple be infused into her. Then it is, that she lives and acts, and\nby her powerful influence inclines the hearts of men _to depart from\nevil_.\n\nNor let any man apprehend that this religious fear will degrade, or\nservilize his virtue. To be free from sin, and only the servants of God,\nis the truest and noblest liberty.\n\nDismissing, then, all other rules of life, let us adhere to that, which\nSolomon prescribes to us. It had been venerable from any hands, but\ncomes with an extraordinary grace and propriety from HIM, who delivers\nit. So that none of the parties, concerned in this discourse, can excuse\nthemselves from paying a peculiar deference to his judgment.\n\n1. The MEN OF THE WORLD can have no pretence for declining this\ndetermination. The author of it is no obscure sordid moralist, whose\nviews of life are confined to a cloyster or a cottage. He addresses them\nfrom the throne of Israel, when it was the pride of the East; and from\nthe center of a court, which he had made the envy of the surrounding\nnations. The followers of fashion will then act but agreeably to their\nown principles, if they respect the example of such a court, and the\nauthority of its sovereign.\n\n2. The POLITICIANS will reflect, that their instructor is himself a great\nmagistrate, consummate in the arts of government; who yet could find no\nsecret, but that of _the fear of God_, by which he could reign securely\nhimself, or promote the real welfare and prosperity of his people. With\nwhat complacency do they sometimes urge a political aphorism, taken from\nAristotle! _But a greater than_ Aristotle _is here_.\n\n3. Lastly, to you, the sages of the world, who are, or account yourselves\nPHILOSOPHERS, nothing can be so respectable to you, as the authority of\nONE, whose name is the name itself of wisdom; of ONE, who, like you,\n_had given his heart to know wisdom_[245]; who had an understanding, at\nleast, equal to yours, and an experience of life, far greater. Yet even\nHE delivers it, as the result of all his knowledge, _That by the fear of\nthe Lord men depart from evil_.\n\nIt is indeed this principle only, which gives its proper direction and\nintegrity to every other. It controuls Fashion; supplies the defects\nof Law; and enforces the conclusions of Reason. It rectifies all our\nsystems, and gives sense and solidity to all our speculations.\n\nTo conclude, Let us all be wise enough to reverence the plain doctrine of\nthe text, and to act upon it: The rather, as that doctrine is not only\njust and reasonable in itself, but proceeds from one, whom the Spirit of\nGod had been pleased to inform with celestial wisdom.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLVIII.\n\nPREACHED MAY 31, 1772.\n\n1 COR. vi. 12.\n\n_All things are lawful unto me; but all things are not expedient: All\nthings are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of\nany._\n\n\nIt would be taking up too much of your time, and of this discourse,\nto explain minutely the occasion of these words, and the connexion\nthey have with the general argument of this chapter. Let it suffice\nto say, that they are introduced as an answer to something which the\nCorinthian Christians did, or might alledge for their neglect of the\ninstructions, given them by the Apostle. We may conceive them to speak\nto this effect\u2014\u201cWhat you enjoin us so strictly to avoid, is not one of\nthose practices which can be deemed unlawful: it is not, as we conceive,\ncondemned by the law of nature, certainly, not by the law of that society\nto which we belong. Now in matters of this kind, there is no need of\nadvice or direction: the things being indifferent in themselves, we may\ndo as we please, and we are disposed, in the present case, to make use of\nour Christian liberty.\u201d\n\nTo this plea, or suggestion, the Apostle replies in the text: \u201cAdmitting,\nsays he, the truth of what ye alledge for yourselves, it does not follow\nthat I may not properly and usefully direct your conduct, in the present\ncase. For suppose that _all things are lawful to me, all things are not\nexpedient_: And, again, _though all things are lawful to me, I will not\nbe brought under the power of any_.\u201d\n\nSt. Paul, you see, does not stay to consider whether the things forbidden\nto the Corinthians, were _lawful_ or not (though possibly they might\nmistake in that assumption, as licentious or thoughtless people, we know,\nevery day do) but, be this as it may, he insists that he had reason\nto lay them under some restraint even in _lawful_ things, because the\npractice of such things was inexpedient, in many respects; And because,\nif all other considerations might be overlooked, it is enough that an\nunrestrained indulgence in them begets slavish habits, and would, in the\nend, destroy, or very much impair, their moral freedom.\n\nOf the words, thus far opened, I propose to make this use; to dissuade\nyou from giving a full scope to the pursuit even of innocent pleasures;\nand that, from the two considerations, expressed in the text:\n\nI. That such devotion of ourselves to them is, on many other accounts,\nhurtful and improper\u2014_all things are not expedient_: And\n\nII. That, in particular, it violates the dignity of human nature, by\ntaking from us, or weakening to a great degree, that manly authority of\nreason, that virtuous self-command, which we should always retain, and\nbe in a condition to exert, even in indifferent matters\u2014_I will not be\nbrought under the power of any_.\n\n1. Wealth and prosperity have a natural tendency to alter, that is, in\nthe language of moralists, to _corrupt_, the public manners. Hence it\nis that the old English habits of plainness, industry, and frugality,\nare, now, exchanged for those of indulgence, dissipation, and expence.\nAll the elegant accommodations of life have an unusual stress laid upon\nthem; and there seems to be a general effort to advance them all to the\nlast degree of refinement. The superfluous, which we call the fine arts,\nexcite an universal admiration, and administer, in ten thousand ways,\nto a luxurious, which, again, takes the name of a polite, indulgence.\nHence, society, which used to fill only the vacant intervals of business,\nis now become the _business_ of life; and yet is found insipid (so\ninsatiable is the love of dissipation) if it be not, further, quickened\nby amusements. These have multiplied upon us so prodigiously, that they\nmeet us at every turn, and in every shape; nay, are grown so common, that\nthey would almost lose the name of amusements, if every possible art were\nnot employed to give a poignancy to them, and if fashion, after all,\nmore than the pleasure they afford, did not support the credit of them.\nAs the last resource of the weary disappointed mind, we have found means\nto interest our keenest passions in one species of amusement, which is\ntherefore called _play_, by way of eminence; and is become the favourite\none, because the most violent: just as the hottest cordials succeed to\nthe free use of strong liquors.\n\nIn this state of things (a very alarming one, in all views) nothing\nthreatens the utter ruin of the little virtue, that is left among us, so\nmuch, as the general persuasion, that such pursuits may be indulged to\nany degree, because they are commonly acknowledged to be _lawful_. Here,\nthen, the distinction of the Apostle comes in very seasonably, and may,\none would hope, be pressed on the lovers of pleasure, with some effect.\nWe may question, it seems, the _expediency_ of these pursuits, how\nindifferent soever they be in their own nature; and a little reflexion\nwill shew that they are, indeed, _inexpedient_, that is, unprofitable,\nunadvisable, improper, in a great variety of respects.\n\nI do not suppose, at present, that the expence of them is ruinous to\nthose, who devote themselves to these pleasures (for then they would\nplainly not be _lawful_ to such persons); but consider, if you can afford\nto pay the price of them ever so well, they take up too much of your\ntime: abundantly too much, if you have any profession to follow, or to\nprepare yourselves for, as most men have; but too much, if you have not,\nbecause it might, and should be employed on better things.\n\nThen, of the little time, they leave to yourselves, they disable you, in\nsome degree, for making the proper use. For they dissipate the attention;\nthey relax the nerves of industry and application; they spread a languor\nover all the faculties, and make the exertion of them, to any valuable\npurpose, painful at least, if not impossible. We hear it generally\nobserved, that there is a scarcity of able men in all the departments\nof life. Can it be otherwise, when the vigour of the mind, which should\nnourish all great and laudable efforts, which is so requisite to push the\nactive powers of invention, or recollection, to their full extent, is\nwasted on trifles, is checked by frivolous habits, and left to languish\nunder them?\n\nOr say, that you have force of mind enough to elude this so natural\neffect of dissipation, is it nothing that, by giving your countenance\nto it, you draw in weaker spirits to make the dangerous experiment?\nthat you help to propagate the enfeebling passion through all quarters,\ntill, from this authorized scene of vanity, the Capital, the contagion\nspreads (as we see it now does) to the smaller towns, and even to\nprivate houses, in the remotest provinces? that you contribute to make\nrespectable I know not what frivolous and worthless arts, and, of course,\nto multiply the professors of them, to the great discouragement and decay\nof useful industry? that you hurt the interests of society, by giving an\nair of importance to the veriest trifles, and by diverting on these the\nattention, and the passion, that should regularly, and would otherwise,\nexert themselves on nobler objects?\n\nI might push these questions still further. For I remember what history\nattests, and what wise men have said, on the chapter of _polite arts and\nelegant amusements_.\n\n\u201cThey tell us, how sad a sign[246] of the times it is, when they grow\ninto general repute among us; that from incessantly indulged appetites\n(let the object of them be what it will) such an impotence of mind may\nfollow, such a lust of gratification, such an impatience of controuling\na predominant fancy, as shall overleap all the fences of discretion and\nvirtue. The d\u00e6mon of taste, say they, shall be obeyed, in defiance of\nevery private and public duty, till distress, disgrace, and infamy break\nin upon us; till we seek the relief of our wants in fraud and rapine,\ninvolve the public ruin in our own, and, in the end, rush blindfold,\nthrough an extreme of profligacy, to desperation.\u201d\n\nTo this effect, and in this tone, have some inveighed against our more\nrefined and elegant _amusements_. But I return to what are commonly\nknown by that name: and with respect to these, allow me to say that the\nlife of man is a serious thing[247]: so serious, that dissolute, I mean,\nuntempered, continued mirth, or pleasure, is not of a piece with it[248].\nOur virtue, our hopes, nay, our present happiness depends on keeping the\nmind in a firm and steady frame. Whatever encroaches on this manliness of\ntemper, is pernicious, and unchristian.\n\nI will indulge the extreme candour to suppose, that, in a constant round\nof _lawful_ amusements, you do not forget, or intermit your moral and\nreligious duties. But with what spirit are they performed? With disgust,\nI doubt; but certainly, with indifference. Nor is this the worst.\nTemptations are to be expected in this life: and in what condition are\nwe to meet them? Nay, we expose ourselves to needless temptation, even\nin the midst of these _lawful_ pleasures; and we bring no power with us,\nhardly the inclination, to withstand it. The present scene distracts\nthe mind, and fascinates the senses. And, in this delirium of the whole\nman, without God in his thought, or heaven in his eye, what wonder if he\nbecome the sport, and, almost before he is aware, the victim of every\npassion!\n\nStill he is not happy in this feverish state: at most, he but forgets\nhimself, for a moment: and the intervals of his amusement, which, in the\nnature of things, must be many and long, are filled with disgust and\nlanguor. Nay, the very amusement wears out by frequent repetition. And\nthen such a sickliness of mind succeeds, and such a weariness of living\non in a too much used and exhausted world, as is insupportable and fatal\nto him[249].\n\nYou see then there are many good reasons, which shew the inexpediency of\nprosecuting even _lawful_ pleasures with an unrestrained passion. But,\nif all others were away, there is ONE consideration still behind, and of\nso much weight, that St. Paul scruples not to make a distinct argument\nof it, and to press it on the Corinthian Christians, as fully decisive\nof the point in question\u2014_All things are lawful for me; but_ I WILL NOT\nBE BROUGHT UNDER THE POWER OF ANY\u2014And to unfold this argument is what I\nproposed to myself\n\n2. _Under the second head of this discourse._\n\nIt should be the ambition of every man to preserve the independency of\nhis own mind on all his natural or acquired inclinations. The dignity\nof his character depends on this supremacy: and his virtue is no longer\nsecure, than while he retains the power, on all occasions, to exert it.\n\n1. The stoical wise man was exposed to much ridicule by taking to himself\nthe name and office of a king. The pretensions were high, no doubt, and\nthe language, something arrogant and ostentatious. But, let the terms, we\nemploy, be what they will, all philosophy, that deserves the name, must\nagree in this, That to have the command of himself, is the duty, and\nchief distinction of a wise man[250]. There is, then, a consistency and\nharmony in his whole conduct. We naturally respect those who give this\nproof of respecting themselves; and we place an entire confidence in the\nvigour and uniformity of their character.\n\nAgain: though the virtue of self-denial shine out to most advantage in\nthe conquest of ardent passions and violent temptations, its use is\nnot inconsiderable in curbing all the lighter fancies. The reason is,\nthat custom prevails insensibly, and reaches farther than we, at first,\nintended. By humouring the mind in trifles, we teach it to presume on its\nown importunity, in greater matters: and it will be found a convenient\nrule in the management of our passions, as of our children, to refuse a\ncompliance with them, not merely when they ask improper things, but when\nthey ask any thing with impatience.\n\nEven our curiosity, an innocent and useful passion, should be kept\nwithin bounds, and not indulged, as we see it is, on every occasion that\npresents itself to us.\n\nThe continence of Scipio has been much and justly applauded. But he\nwent a step too far, in seeing his captive. He triumphed, indeed, over\nthe stronger temptation, but he was not enough on his guard against the\nweaker: by complying too easily with a frivolous curiosity, he risked the\nhonour of that virtue, which a pagan historian finds so divine in ONE,\nwho was _et juvenis, et c\u0153lebs, et victor_[251].\n\nTo apply these reflexions to the case before us. It may seem to be\na matter of great indifference, whether we indulge an inclination\nfor _lawful_ amusements, or not. But the dignity of our character is\nconcerned in keeping a strict hand over our inclinations of every sort:\nand, if it were only for an exercise of self-government, it would be\nworth the while to moderate, that is, frequently to suspend, the use of\na favourite, though innocent gratification. To be enslaved by vicious\nhabits, is the ignominy of a little mind: to be superior to all, is the\nglory of a great one.\n\n2. But, in truth, there is no security in any case, if we let go this\n_habit_ of self-government. One compliance inevitably brings on another;\nand, though we set out with the design of stopping at a certain point, we\nshall almost fatally be carried much farther. We meant to acquiesce in\nthis, confessedly harmless, indulgence: constant use makes it insipid;\nand then we venture on one of a suspicious character. Being now on the\nconfines of vice, we are easily pushed into that quarter; with some\ndoubt and hesitation, at first; but scruples give way, as the habit\nstrengthens, and all vices being connected with each other, especially\nall of one sort, we, by degrees, make the trial of all: and thus, from\nan innocent fancy, or inclination, indulged too freely, at setting out,\nwe slip insensibly, and beside our purpose, into manifest, perhaps\nuniversal, dissolution.\n\nSo salutary, so divine is the resolution of the Apostle! _All things are\nlawful for me: but I will not be brought under the power of any._\n\nTo interdict amusements, altogether, to the vivacity of youth, would be\nsevere and cynical. They are abundantly too numerous, at present, and too\nmuch frequented: but many of them are supposed to be, and some, without\ndoubt, are, in themselves, _lawful_. Of these, only, I am now speaking:\nand even of these it must be affirmed, that the unrestrained use of them\nis _not expedient_; as, for the other reasons suggested to you in this\ndiscourse, so chiefly, because it degrades the man, and enslaves him.\n\nTo conclude; the safe and manly part is, _to be temperate in all\nthings_[252]: to make our pleasures, the occasional relaxation[253] of\nthe mind, and by no means the employment of it: not, perhaps, to affect a\ntotal abstinence from them, which the world would account an incivility;\nbut resolutely to forbear all vicious, or but suspected pleasures: and,\nfor the rest, to keep a great deal on this side of what is thought\nallowable in the use of them.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XLIX.\n\nPREACHED JULY 5, 1772.\n\nMATTH. v. 38, 39, 40, 41.\n\n_Ye have heared that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil_: but _whosoever\nshall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also_: And,\n_if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him\nhave thy cloke also_: And _whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go\nwith him twain_.\n\n\nI suppose, if these words had been found in any book whatsoever, except\nthe Bible, no man of sense could have entertained the least doubt of\ntheir meaning. But, while one sort of readers think they do honour to\nGod\u2019s word by taking every precept in the most strict and rigid sense,\nand another, by the same mode of interpretation, hope to dishonour it, we\nmay expect that, between them, the usual rules of criticism will be very\nlittle regarded.\n\nThe text refers us to a law of Moses, which established the _jus\ntalionis_, or _right of retaliation_[254]. This law, in the main, is\nconsonant to natural equity; was of general use and authority in ancient\ntimes; has, with some modification, been adopted by legislators of\nall times; and was peculiarly fit, or rather necessary, in the Mosaic\ninstitute, composed in a very remote age of the world, and addressed to a\nfierce and barbarous people.\n\nBut this, so reasonable law, had undergone a double abuse in our\nSaviour\u2019s time. What was designed, in the hands of the magistrate, to\nprevent future injury, was construed into an allowance of private and\npersonal revenge: And, again, what was calculated to prevent great and\noutrageous injuries, was pleaded in excuse for avenging every injury. The\nJews retaliated, at pleasure, on those that offended them, and for the\nslightest offence.\n\nOur divine Master, then, without derogating from the law, when\nadministered in due form, and on a suitable occasion, applies himself to\ncorrect these so gross perversions of it\u2014I _say unto you, that ye resist\nnot evil_\u2014that is, that ye do not retaliate on the person, that does you\nan injury, in the way of private revenge; or even of a public suit, for\nsmall and trivial injuries.\n\nYou see, our Lord\u2019s purpose was, to oppose the mild spirit of the Gospel\nto the rigid letter of the law, or rather to an abusive interpretation\nof it: And this purpose is declared in three familiar and proverbial\nsayings, which, together, amount to thus much; \u201cThat, when a small or\ntolerable injury is sustained by any one, either in his person, or\nproperty, or liberty, it is far better (and was, thenceforward, to be\nthe law of Christians) to endure patiently that injury, or even to risk\na repetition of it, than, by retaliating on the aggressor, to perpetuate\nfeuds and quarrels in the world.\u201d\n\nThat such is the meaning of the text, would appear more evidently, if\nthe injuries specified were, further, considered with an eye to the\nsentiments and circumstances of the Jewish people. _A blow on the cheek_\nwas, always, an indignity, no doubt; but the sense of it was not inflamed\nin a Jew by our Gothic notions of honour; though, if it had, the divine\nSaviour[255] would scarce have advised his followers to extinguish it\nin the blood of a fellow-citizen: the loss of a _vest_[256], or under\ngarment, was easily repaired, or not much felt, in the cheap and warm\ncountry of Jud\u00e6a: and the _compulsion to attend another_[257], on his\noccasions, was not much resented by a people, that had been familiarised\nto this usage by their foreign masters.\n\nBut, without scrutinizing the expression farther (which, as I said, is\nof the proverbial cast, and, therefore, not to be taken strictly) it\nappears certainly, that the rule enjoined is no more than this, \u201cThat we\nare not to act on the old rigid principle of _retaliation_, but rather to\nexercise a mutual patience and forbearance, in our intercourse with each\nother, for the sake of charity and peace.\u201d\n\nStill, it has been asked, whether this rule be a reasonable one, and\nwhether the conduct, it prescribes, be not likely to do more hurt, than\ngood to mankind?\n\nThe ground of this question is laid in following considerations:\n\nFirst, that resentment, being a natural passion, was, without doubt,\nimplanted in us for valuable purposes, and that its proper and immediate\nuse is seen in repelling injuries:\n\nSecondly, That to eradicate, or to suppress this movement of nature, is\nto dispirit mankind, and to effeminate their character; in other words,\nto make them unfit for the discharge of those offices, which the good of\nsociety requires:\n\nLastly, That this softness of temper is injurious to the individuals, in\nwhom it is found, as it exposes them to many insults, and much ill usage,\nwhich the exertion of a quick and spirited resentment would enable them\nto avoid:\n\nFrom all which, conclusions are drawn very unfavourable to the doctrine\nof the text, and to the honour of our divine Master. It will, then, be\nproper to give the premises a distinct and careful examination. And,\n\nI. _The use of the natural passion of resentment is not superseded by the\nlaw of Jesus._ For the legitimate use of this passion is to quicken us\nin repelling such injuries as would render human life wholly burthensome\nand uneasy to us, not of those petty affronts and discourtesies which\nafflict us much less by being dissembled and forgiven, than by being\nresented and returned. Now Christianity does not require us to renounce\nthe right of nature in repelling injuries of the former class. The law\nin question, as explained by our Lord himself, does not, we have seen,\nimport thus much: and for the rest, the appeal is open to the principles\nof nature and common sense\u2014_Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is\nright[258]?_ The practice of the Apostles (the best comment on the law)\nshews, too, that, on certain critical and urgent occasions[259], they\nscrupled not to take advantage of those principles. So that universally,\nas it would seem, where the ends of self-preservation, or of prepollent\npublic utility, require and justify resistance in other men, there it\nis left free for Christians, likewise, to _resist evil_; the purpose of\ntheir divine legislator being, in this instance, to explain the law of\nnature, and to guard it from the abuse of our hasty passions, not to\nabrogate, or suspend it.\n\nIf any case be excepted from the general permission, it is that of\n_persecution for the sake of his religion_. And possibly this exception\nwas made in the early days of Christianity, to afford a striking proof to\nthe world that this religion owed its success to the divine protection\nonly, and not to the power of men. Accordingly, the command given in\nthat case has an extraordinary, that is, a suitable, promise[260],\nannexed to it. But the end of God\u2019s special providence having been\nanswered, and the prophecies accomplished[261], by the patience of the\nsaints under the fiery trial of persecution in those days (whence the\nmiraculous establishment of our religion is evinced) it seems allowable\nto suppose that the Christian world was, thenceforth, in this, as in\nother instances, to conduct itself by the ordinary rules and principles\nof human wisdom; provided that the object of that wisdom be necessary\n_self-defence_, and not dominion, or revenge, which, in all the forms of\neither, Christianity forbids and reprobates.\n\nBut be this as it may, in cases where religion is not concerned, it\nseems clear that Christians are left at liberty to repell intolerable\noppressions by all those means, which human wisdom dictates. And there\nis no need of drawing the line very exactly between _tolerable_ and\n_intolerable_ injuries, because the aggressor, knowing the force of\ninstinctive passion, has reason, always, to fear, that it will begin to\noperate too soon, rather, than too late.\n\nThe apprehension, then, that the proper use of the natural passion,\n\u201c_resentment of injuries_\u201d, is likely to be defeated by the patient\ngenius of the Gospel, is weakly entertained: While, on the other hand,\nevery one must see the convenience of putting this fiery sentiment of\nindignation under some restraint, and of interdicting the exertion of it\nin cases, to which so violent a remedy is ill and hurtfully applied.\n\nBut\n\nII. It is said, that this doctrine of the Gospel tends to _dispirit and\neffeminate mankind_, and to _render Christians unfit for many offices,\nwhich society requires of them_.\n\nWhat these offices are, one does not readily conceive, since it is\nallowed that _evil may be resisted_, when it becomes excessive, that is,\nwhen it is worth resisting. But, I suppose, the objectors mean, this\npatient spirit of Christianity damps the vigour with which it is for the\ninterest of men in society that their civil rights should be asserted, or\na foreign enemy repelled: they think, in short, it makes _bad citizens_,\nand _worse soldiers_.\n\nNow to the FORMER charge I reply, that it only tends to check, or\nprevent, the turbulent, the factious, the seditious spirit of any\ncommunity (which is surely doing it no hurt) while, at the same time, it\nallows men to assert their essential civil interests by every reasonable\nexertion of firmness and courage; nay, inculcates those principles of\na disinterested love for mankind, and what is properly called a public\nspirit, which make it their duty to do so. And they will not do it with\nthe less effect, for waiting till the provocation given appear to\nall men to be without excuse. _The fury of a patient man_, is almost\nproverbial: and particularly, in this case, it is to be expected that,\nwhen the natural incitement to resistance, long repressed and moderated,\ncomes at length to be authorised by necessity, and quickened by sense of\nduty, it will act with a force and constancy, not a little formidable to\nthose against whom it is directed. There is no danger, then, that _true\npatriotism_ should suffer by the meek principles of the Gospel of peace.\n\nAs to the OTHER charge of their weakening the _military spirit_, it\nmust be owned again, they would render wars less frequent than they now\nare, and less destructive\u2014forgive Christianity this wrong\u2014but, when the\nnecessity of self-defence (the only justifiable ground of war) is real\nand instant, I know not, why the Christian prince, or Christian soldier,\nshould want courage, because he had given proof of this equitable\nforbearance; or, that either will be likely to do his duty the worse, for\nknowing that what he does, _is_ his duty.\n\nAnd, if we appeal to fact, it is enough known, that the Christian\nsoldiery have been no disgrace to their profession; no, not even then,\nwhen the unresisting spirit was at its height, I mean, in the early\ndays of our religion. Christians had many good reasons for not being\nforward to serve in the Roman armies; but some of them did serve there;\nwithout doubt, when they were released from such military obligations\nand observances, as they esteemed idolatrous: Nay, it appears, that the\nnumber of Christian soldiers was, on some occasions, considerable: Yet we\nno where find, that these patient men misbehaved themselves in a day of\naction; or, that they threw away their swords, when they had said their\nprayer.\n\nAnd I give this instance of bravery in the primitive Christians, the\nrather, because it cannot be imputed to a _fanatic spirit_, which is\nable, we know, to controul any principles: It cannot, I say, be imputed\nto a fanatic spirit, because religion was not the object of those wars,\nin which they were engaged: They were left, then, to the proper influence\nof their own principles; which at that time had their full effect upon\nthem, and yet did not prevent them from acting with the true spirit of\ntheir profession, that is, with a full sense of the duty imposed upon\nthem by their engagements to the state.\n\nWith regard to the _publick_, then, there is no reason to think that our\nLord\u2019s injunction will disserve it, in any respect.\n\nIII. The last, and most plausible objection to the conduct prescribed\nin the text, is, \u201cThat the tame spirit, it discovers, is injurious to\n_individuals_, and only serves to provoke much insult and ill usage,\nwhich a quick resentment and return of injuries would prevent.\u201d\n\nThis is the common plea, and passes with many for a full justification,\nof that false honour, which predominates in the world, but is equally\nfrivolous with the other pretences, already confuted.\n\nFor,\n\n1. It is taken up on a groundless and mistaken notion, that the\nunfriendly and malevolent passions are the most natural to mankind. On\nthe contrary, man is by nature, kind and generous; proud and vindictive,\nindeed, if stimulated by ill treatment, but prompted, again, by that\nvery pride, to relent at the appearance of gentleness and submission in\nthe party offending; and easily disposed to lay aside the thoughts of\nrevenge, when no obstinate resistance seems to make it necessary. There\nare, certainly, few persons, at least in civilized life, of so base a\ntemper, as to insult others, and much less to insult them the more,\nfor their gentle inoffensive manners. Or, if such monsters there be,\nthey will soon become detestable in society; while the objects of their\nunprovoked fury find an asylum in the general good-will and favour of\nmankind.\n\nThey, therefore, who pretend that the world cannot be kept in order, but\nby resentment and revenge, will do well to make trial of the opposite\nconduct, before they have recourse to so boisterous a remedy. They will\nprobably find, that _only by_ PRIDE _cometh contention_[262], and that\nthey have injured their species, in thinking otherwise.\n\n2. Let it be remembered, that the Gospel neither forbids us to take the\nbenefit of the laws in cases, where the injury is considerable, nor to\nresist, without law, in extreme cases; besides, that our corrupt nature\nwill often get the better of _principle_, I mean, when the provocation is\nnot of that size, as to justify either remedy. Whence it follows, that\nbrutal force and malignity will lie under many restraints, and will\nrarely be encouraged by the passive temper of a conscientious Christian,\nto proceed to such lengths, as the objection supposes. But,\n\n3. Lastly, and principally, we should call to mind, that, though some\nungenerous dispositions should take advantage of our dissembling smaller\ninjuries, to repeat, or even increase them, till they come at length\nto the utmost verge of what we call _tolerable_ injuries, yet it does\nnot follow, from such inconvenience, that the law is to be accounted\ninexpedient. For the law has a general end in view, the good of society\nat large, or of the individual: And the law is a proper one, if the end\nbe commonly and for the most part attained by the conduct prescribed,\nthough with some exceptions.\n\nThat the lawgiver foresaw the possibility of such exceptions, is clear\nfrom the language, employed by him. If a blow _on one cheek_ be patiently\nreceived, it may be succeeded by a blow _on the other_: if we suffer our\n_coat_ to be taken away, our _cloke_ may follow it: and if we make no\nresistance to the requisition of going _one mile_, we may be compelled to\ngo _two_. The inconvenience, then, is supposed and admitted in the law\nitself; but it was seen not to be of moment enough to evacuate the law.\nGenerally speaking, it will be better to bear the inconvenience, than\nto violate the law; better for the injured party himself, but certainly\nbetter for society, at large.\n\nWe are certain, that the law will operate this effect, because the\nlawgiver is, by supposition, divine. He, who knew _what was in man_, what\nhis nature, and true interest, is, could not mistake in adapting the law\nto the subject of it. And then, for the _exceptions_, he has it in his\npower to make amends for those, and to recompense fully, as he engages\nto do, any sacrifice we make to conscience, acting within the scope and\npurpose of the law.\n\nSo that, on the whole, it is but a just deference to the law, and to the\nauthority of the lawgiver, to abstain from _resisting evil_, according to\nthe true sense and spirit of the command, though, by so doing, we subject\nourselves to some, nay to much inconvenience. For he must be slenderly\ninstructed in the school of Christ, who is yet to learn, that greater\nsacrifices, than these, must be made, if need be, for the sake of _him\nwho died for us_.\n\nEnough, I hope, has been now said, not only to vindicate the sacred\ntext, but to let you see how repugnant the doctrine of it is to that\ncontentious, vindictive, and even sanguinary spirit, which prevails so\nmuch among those, who, by a strange abuse of language, call themselves\nChristians.\n\nThe root of this mischief, is, a pride of heart, nourished in us by\nan ill-directed education, and fostered, through life, by the corrupt\ncustoms and maxims of the world. To counteract this inveterate evil, we\nshall do well to consider who and what we are; weak, infirm, and sinful\ncreatures, who are provoking Heaven every day, and should not therefore\nresent it much, if we receive but little respect from men. We should\nconsider, too, that we are the followers of HIM, who suffered every\nindignity without deserving any, and yet requires no more from us, than\nhe practised himself, and for our sakes.\n\nSuch considerations will make us humble and meek and placable; ready\nto forgive, as we hope to be forgiven; and disposed to make allowance\nfor those defects in others, which we have so much reason to lament in\nourselves.\n\nStill, if we find the duty, of _not resisting evil_, painful and uneasy\nto us, let us be careful to avoid the occasions, which require the\nexercise of it. A prudent Christian (and Christianity excludes not,\nnay enjoins, prudence) will rarely be put to this trial of his virtue.\nWe bring an insult on ourselves by indiscreet liberties, by offensive\nactions or rash expressions; and then, rather than retract a folly, we\ncommit a crime.\n\nAfter all, the most cautious, inoffensive conduct may not exempt us, in\nevery instance, from discourtesies and affronts, from the petulance or\ninjustice of unreasonable men. In this case the authority of our divine\nMaster must controul the movements of nature. We must resolve to endure\nwhat we dare not resist; and, for the rest, may assure ourselves, that,\nin giving this proof of our Christian temper and principles, we do what\nis perfectly fit and right in itself, is singularly conducive to the\ngood of society, and, whatever our impatient passions may suggest, will\ncontribute more than any resistance, to our own true enjoyment, even in\nthis world.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON L.\n\nPREACHED MAY 14, 1775.\n\nLUKE ix. 26.\n\n_Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the\nSon of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory and in his\nFather\u2019s, and of the holy Angels._\n\n\nIf we compare this text with the parallel one of St. Mark[263], it will\nseem probable that it more immediately concerned the Jews; who, in\nconsequence of their being _ashamed_ of Christ, and rejecting him, as\ntheir Messiah, should themselves be covered with shame, and be rejected\nby him from being his people, when he came to take vengeance of their\ncrimes in the destruction of Jerusalem. In this view, the words are\nprophetical of what should, and, in fact, did, befall the _unbelieving\nJews_ of that age, in which Christ lived; for _before that age was\npassed, all these things were fulfilled on_ that _adulterous and sinful\ngeneration_: were so remarkably fulfilled, that the unbelieving Jews,\nonly, were involved in that calamity, while the Christians, even to a\nman, as we are told, providentially made their escape from it.\n\nBut, though this be the primary sense of the text, we have reason to\nbelieve that something further, and still more terrible, was intended\nby it. For the destruction of Jerusalem was emblematical of that final\ndestruction, which should await all the enemies of Christ in the day of\njudgment; as we may probably gather from the exaggerated terms in which\nthe prophecy concerning Christ\u2019s coming to judge Jerusalem is delivered,\nand as we certainly conclude from those passages of scripture, which\nprofessedly describe the final day of judgment, when _all that believe\nnot shall be condemned_[264], and concerning which our Lord himself\nsays\u2014_He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that\njudgeth him: the_ WORD _which I have spoken_, THE SAME _shall judge him\nin the last day_[265].\n\nWhence, you see, we are authorized to take the words of the text in their\nfull force, and to understand them as a general declaration to ALL, who\nshall be _ashamed of Christ and of his words_, that _of them_ shall\nChrist, also, _be ashamed_, in the great day of retribution, sublimely\nexpressed by the circumstance of his _coming in his own glory, and in his\nFather\u2019s, and of the holy Angels_.\n\nTo be _ashamed of_ CHRIST, is very intelligible language, and means to\ndisown him for what he claims to be, The Messiah; and to take it for a\ndegradation to us, a reflexion on our own sufficiency and importance,\nto regard him as our Lord and Saviour. In like manner, to be _ashamed\nof his_ WORDS, is, to think it beneath us to receive his doctrine, and\nto observe it: It is to say, or to behave ourselves as if we said, with\nneglect and scorn, that we will not condescend to be influenced and\ndirected by it.\n\nBut how, and in what respects, may we be said to incur the guilt of this\ncharge? in what ways, may we testify to the world that the shame of\nCHRIST and of his WORDS is predominant in us?\n\nThe inquiry, you see, is of the last importance; for this _shame_ of\nChrist, in whomsoever it prevails, and so far as it prevails, will be\nrepaid in kind, in that day, when he shall _come in glory_, in that day\nwhen it so much concerns us to _have boldness_ before him, _in the day of\njudgment_[266].\n\nTo assist you, then, in making this momentous inquiry, permit me to lay\nbefore you, gradually and distinctly, the CHIEF of those cases, which\nappear to me to express, or imply, the existence of this _false shame_;\nand may therefore let us see whether we are, or not, involved in the\nguilt of it.\n\nI. They (if any such there be) who reject Christianity on the grounds of\na fair impartial inquiry, cannot so properly be said to be _ashamed_ of\nChrist, as to be _convinced_ that he has no claim to their respect and\nveneration. For they deny him, they will say, not from a principle of\n_shame_, or disrespect, but of what they take to be _right reason_.\n\nBut then, if any oblique views have influenced their disbelief; if\nconceit, or vanity, or presumption, has any share in forming their\nconclusions; if a careless or fastidious neglect of the means, by which\nthey might be better informed, has mixed itself with their inquiries;\nif they have felt the smallest disposition in themselves to struggle\nwith evidence, or to be concluded by any thing but evidence; if any, or\nall, of these motives can be imputed to them, they will find themselves\nliable, more or less, to the charge of the text; and it surely concerns\nthem to see that they stand clear of all such imputations: It concerns\nthem the more, because, if the revelation be divine, the revealer knew\nwhat evidence was fit to be given of it, and that the evidence given\nwas sufficient to the conviction of a reasonable inquirer. To the\nsevere scrutiny of their own hearts, the disbelievers on principle are,\ntherefore, referred: and, _if their heart condemn them_ in any degree,\nlet them reflect with awe, that _God is greater than their heart, and\nknoweth all things_[267].\n\nBut, whatever these immaculate unbelievers may have to say for\nthemselves, there are others who have the spots of _shame_ indelibly\nimpressed upon them.\n\nSuch were the Jews of old, who rejected Christ, not because they wanted\nevidence of his mission (for they could not deny, nay they frankly\nowned, that _he did many miracles_[268]), but because he was the _Son\nof a Carpenter_[269]; because he was of _Galilee_[270], and dwelt _at\nNazareth_; because their _rulers did not believe in him_[271]; because\nthey were afraid of being _put out of their synagogue_[272]; because\n_they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God_[273]; in plain\nwords, because on one account or other, they were ASHAMED OF HIM.\n\nSUCH, too, in succeeding times, were many of the pagan wise men, who\ndisbelieved, because the doctrine of the cross was _foolishness_ to\nthem[274]; because the Jews, who were the first converts to the faith and\nthe first preachers of it, were, in their eyes, a contemptible people;\nbecause the vulgar were generally inclined to believe in him; because his\ndoctrine contradicted and degraded their philosophy; because their pride\nof reason would not submit to be tutored by the Galil\u00e6an; in a word, for\na hundred frivolous reasons, which only shewed, that they were ASHAMED OF\nHIM.\n\nSuch, too, in later times (may we affirm without a breach of charity)\nhave been, and are, many of those over-modest men, who know not how to\nwithstand the raillery of prophane scoffers; who think the credit of\ntheir parts concerned in rejecting their creed, and applaud themselves\nfor sitting loose to the principles, which they call the prejudices,\nof their Christian education; who affect to have a religion of their\nown making, if they have any at all, or, rather, disclaim all regard\nto religion, on the authority of this or that renowned patriarch of\ninfidelity; to say all, in a word, who have the infirmity, and yet make\nit a matter of vanity, to be ASHAMED OF JESUS.\n\nNow, of such unbelievers it must be said, that they clearly come within\nthe description of the text; they are _ashamed_ of the Son of man, and\nyet, perhaps, _glory in their shame_: to what end, let them reflect,\nwhen they read on, and find, that of such _shall the Son of man_, in\nhis turn, _be ashamed, when he shall came in his own glory, and in his\nFather\u2019s, and of the holy Angels_.\n\nII. [1.] Of men _professing_ Christianity, they are most exposed to the\ncensure of the text, who, under a full conviction that Jesus is the\nChrist, yet, in WORDS, formally disown and reject him. Such was the\nApostle Peter, who _thrice denied_ his Lord, though he had not the least\ndoubt of his divine pretensions. And why did he deny him? Because, it\nlessened him in the eyes of a stranger or two, to have it believed by\nthem, that he was connected with a supposed criminal; because he had not\nthe confidence to bear up against the reproach of a _maid-servant_, who\n_looked earnestly upon him, and said, This man was, also, with him_. Such\nwas the power, which a false shame had upon this great, and otherwise\nfervent, disciple of Christ! A memorable instance of human frailty, which\nshould admonish believers to be on their guard against all approaches\ntowards a crime, the less pardonable, because committed against the clear\nsense of the mind, and almost without temptation.\n\nSt. Peter, it is true, might alledge the passion of _fear_, as well as\n_shame_: he probably thought his life in some danger, and had an eye\nto his personal safety, as well as credit, when he denied his Master.\nYet when he reflected on his unworthy conduct, though under these\ncircumstances of alleviation, he _wept bitterly_, as he had reason\nto do. What then should they feel, who have not this cloke for their\nshame? who deny their Lord without any inducement to do so, but the weak\napprehension of disgusting some persons, whose sentiments, after all,\nthey do not really adopt, themselves. Yet is this no uncommon case. Men\nare ashamed to confess with their mouths, what they believe in their\nhearts; and give themselves airs of a frank libertinism, when they\ntremble at their own impiety: And all this to be well with a frivolous\ncircle, which they frequent, or to merit the good word of certain\nfashionable blasphemers.\n\n[2]. Another sort of men seem to come within the description of the text,\nwho, though neither prompted by a sense of danger to their persons, nor\nof disgrace to their reputation, are yet induced by a regard to their\n_interest_, when it presses upon them with a certain force, to dissemble\ntheir conviction, or rather openly to avow their shame of Jesus. Such\nare they, of whom our Lord himself speaks, _who for a while believe, and\nin time of temptation fall away_[275]: And such, in particular, was the\nyoung man in the Gospel, who had no vice to keep him from believing, nay\nwho would gladly, perhaps have sacrificed any thing, but his fortune,\nto the Christian faith. It seems, as if he had been upon the point of\nentering, without reserve, into the service of his new master, when,\nbeing told, that he must part with _all he had_, and then _follow him,\nhe grew sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great\npossessions_[276]. Poverty was a _cross_, which this amiable young man\nwas not prepared to _take up_. His faith, which, before, gave a promise\nof life and vigour, died away at the proposal. He now found, doubtless\nwith some surprize to himself, that he had the seeds of infidelity\nlurking in him. He could not resolve to give this last proof of his\nsincerity: he, therefore, withdrew himself from Christ; in other words,\nhe was _ashamed_ of him. Let us pity the weakness of this unhappy\nyoung man; and only ask ourselves, if, in his circumstances, or in any\napproaching to them, we should not have hesitated, as he did, about\n_believing in the name_ of the Lord Jesus. If we should, let us implore\nthe divine grace to strengthen our faith, and frankly confess, that a\nsecret principle of _shame_, though skulking behind some other and more\nvenial infirmity, has taken hold of us.\n\n[3]. Still we may not have gone these lengths of infidelity. We assure\nourselves, perhaps, that no consideration would induce us, simply and\nwholly, to renounce the faith, and that, if the hard alternative was\nproposed to us, we should rather give up wealth, fame, and life itself,\nthan formally deny our Lord, and disclaim all hopes of interest in him.\nBut let us explore our hearts a little, those _hearts_, which, as we are\ntold and have reason to know, are _deceitful above all things_[277]. Have\nwe never in lesser instances detected ourselves approaching somewhat\ntowards this ignominious crime of apostacy?\n\nHave we not contented ourselves with being the disciples of Christ\nin private, and with _going to him_, as the Ruler of the Jews did,\n_by night_, in secrecy, and, as it were, by stealth, not to draw the\nobservation of men upon us? Have we been willing and ready to serve\nhim in the congregation, to attend his ordinances, and to revere his\nsacraments? Have we dared to let the world see that we are not ashamed\nof the cross of Christ[278]? and that we glory in _remembering him_, as\nwe are admonished to do, at his holy table[279]? Have we no reluctance\nto let our friends, nay our servants, know[280] that we live in a daily\nsense of our duty to him, and that we hope for all the blessings of\nthis life and the next, only through his merits and intercession? Have\nwe never heared his pretensions slighted, and his holy name blasphemed,\nwithout expressing a becoming zeal for the honour of our Redeemer?\nHave we testified out displeasure at freedoms of this sort by an open\nreprehension of them on all fit occasions; at least by a look and manner,\nwhich shewed how offensive they were to us? On the other hand, have we\nnever, in such circumstances, by an assumed air of complacency, seemed\nto authorize what we secretly disapproved, and to yield our assent to\npropositions which we inwardly detested? In a word, have we none of us,\nat any time, given occasion to unbelievers to say or think of us, that\nwe were _almost_ inclined to be of their party; or at least that we had\nnot the zeal, and firmness and resolution, which men ought to have, who\nprofess themselves believers in Jesus?\n\nTo these, and other questions of the like sort, it concerns us to think\nwhat answers we could honestly make. But of this be we assured: If we\nhave not constantly and uniformly signified, declared, proclaimed our\nattachment to Christ; if we have not taken care to avoid all irreverence\ntoward our Lord and Master; nay, if we have not been enough upon our\nguard to let no man suspect us of _indifference_ towards him\u2014we certainly\nhave not done our duty; we have virtually denied _the Son of Man_; we\nhave, in effect, been _ashamed_ of him.\n\nAnd THUS MUCH may suffice for a commentary on that part of the text,\nwhich more immediately respects the PERSON of Jesus Christ\u2014_Whosoever\nshall be ashamed of_ ME\u2014but our Lord goes farther, and says\u2014_Whosoever\nshall be ashamed of me, and of_ MY WORDS\u2014_of him shall the Son of Man be\nashamed_, in the day of judgment.\n\nHere, then, is a new subject of discourse. I call it a new one; because,\nthough the two topics run into one, and he that is ashamed of Christ\u2019s\n_words_, may not improperly be said to be ashamed of _Christ himself_,\nyet, for the sake of method, it may be convenient to keep these two\npoints distinct, and to give to each a separate consideration.\n\nIt remains, then, to set before you the principal of those ways, in\nwhich we may incur the guilt, especially, of being ashamed of our Lord\u2019s\n_words_, that is, his DOCTRINES, and LAWS: a copious and important\nsubject! on which I shall reserve what I have to say to another\noccasion. In the mean time, let us lay to heart what we have now heard\nconcerning the honour due to the PERSON of our great Redeemer. _Be we\nnot, therefore, ashamed of our Lord_[281]\u2014but _let us_ resolutely _abide\nin him, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be\nashamed before him at his coming_[282].\n\n\n\n\nSERMON LI.\n\nPREACHED MAY 21, 1775.\n\nLUKE ix. 26.\n\n_Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of_ MY WORDS, _of him shall the\nSon of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his\nFather\u2019s, and of the holy Angels_.\n\n\nThe text distinguishes between _being ashamed of_ CHRIST, and being\n_ashamed of his_ WORDS. And, though the two charges, in effect, run into\none, yet I have found it convenient, in point of method, to observe that\ndistinction. Considering the subject, in this double view, we shall see\nmore clearly, _what_ the crime is, which we are here cautioned to avoid,\nand _when_ we are guilty of it.\n\nI have already gone through the first division of the text, and shall now\nenter on the second. If we have not formally disowned, or, in effect,\nat least, been _ashamed_ of CHRIST, that is, of his name, dignity,\nand person, and of the relation, which we bear to him, as our SAVIOUR\nand REDEEMER, yet have we not felt in ourselves, and evidenced to\nothers, something of that disposition in regard to his WORDS, that is,\nconsidering him in the light of our LORD and MASTER?\n\nNow, to do justice to this part of our subject, we must consider the\n_words_ of Christ, first, in THEMSELVES, or as composing that form and\nmanner of address, in which he thought fit to deliver himself to us:\nand, secondly, in the SUBJECT MATTER of them, that is, as comprehending\nboth his _doctrines_ and _precepts_, _articles of faith_, and _rules of\nlife_, all that, as our heavenly _Instructor_, he requires us to believe,\nand, as our _lawgiver_, to put in practice. In both respects, I doubt,\nwe shall, many of us, find that we have too much, and too often, been\nashamed of Christ\u2019s _words_.\n\nI. Under the first consideration of the words themselves, that is, of\nhis _manner_ in addressing himself to us, let it be observed, that,\nthough it be true, in several respects, that _never man spake as this\nman_, yet this commendation must not be extended to the _language_ of\nhis discourses, in which no peculiar art or elegance is affected. He\ncondescended to speak, as any other Jew might have done, and as his\nApostle afterwards did, plainly and clearly enough to convey his meaning,\nbut not with _the enticing words of man\u2019s wisdom_, that is, of men\ncultivated and polished in the school of Greek or Roman learning. Hence,\nboth in ancient and modern times, such as were, or pretended to be, so\naccomplished, have not unfrequently objected to the style of the Gospel,\nas rude and barbarous, and not composed with that beauty, which they\nhave been taught to admire in the masters of fine writing. Now, though\nthis pedantry might, perhaps, be excused in an old Pagan sophist, and\nis naturally enough assumed by a modern classical unbeliever, one is\nshocked to find it in professed Christians. And yet, I doubt, there are\nnot a few of those, who are _half ashamed_ of the Gospel, because not\nwritten in the best Greek, or according to the rules of the most approved\nrhetorick: I doubt, there are even those who might tell us, if they would\n(as a polite Italian philologist has done) that they read their bible but\nseldom, lest a familiarity with it should hurt their style; or perhaps\nabstain from reading it, altogether, because not fashioned according to\ntheir ideas of elegant composition.\n\nIt would be paying too much respect to this frivolous delicacy, to enter\ninto a formal confutation of it. What I shall say to it is, briefly,\nthis; first, that the style of scripture, though not classical, is by no\nmeans destitute of life and beauty: secondly, that, although it were,\nwhere the matter of it concerns us so much, it is childish to lay any\ngreat stress on the manner: that, _further_, the very objection turns\nto the honour of the Gospel, which was purposely so composed that the\neffect of it, in the conversion of the world, might be seen to flow from\nsupernatural causes, and _that our faith should not stand in the wisdom\nof men, but in the power of God_.\n\nTo all which I might add, what perhaps is a secret to our polite\nobjectors, that the rules of writing and speaking are more arbitrary than\nthey are taken to be: that they refer to our customs and manners, and\nderive their merit from that reference, only; that, in different times\nand places and under different circumstances, the same manner may be good\nand bad; and that there is no universal archetype of perfect speech,\nexisting in nature[283].\n\nBut these minute inquiries are not for this time and place. On whatever\nprinciples the style of scripture may be vindicated, or if it cannot be\nvindicated at all to a fastidious reader, still I affirm, that the taking\noffence at it is a species of that false shame, which the text condemns,\nand which deserves condemnation. When the _word of God_ is held up to us\nin the great day, and the inquiry is, what attention we have paid to it,\nthink how poor a subterfuge it will be from the _shame_, that will then\novertake us, to reply, in the face of men and angels, that it was not the\n_word_ of Cicero or Plato.\n\nHaving dismissed this trifling cavil, let us now see,\n\nII. In the next place, in what respects it may be charged upon us that\nwe have been ashamed of Christ\u2019s _words_; that is, of their SUBJECT\nMATTER; considered in the double view of the _doctrines_, and _precepts_,\ncontained in them.\n\n1. As to the DOCTRINES of Christ, that is, the peculiar articles of\nChristian faith, one would think that to reject, or question, or explain\naway these, was inconsistent with the very profession of Christianity.\nYet this conduct in some shape or other, presents itself to us every day,\nin those who are, or who desire to be thought, Christians; and one cannot\nbut wonder at the pains they take to draw upon themselves this charge of\ninconsistency.\n\nSome, bolder than the rest, would expunge whole chapters, nay books,\nfrom the sacred canon, when the narrative rises above their faith, or\nthe doctrine will not sink to a level with their wisdom; others content\nthemselves with nibbling at single sentences, or, perhaps, words; and, if\nno obscure manuscript be at hand to favour the system they adopt, take\nrefuge in a forced, unnatural punctuation. How many ancient and modern\nheresies have we seen supported by that presumptuous, or this minute\nstrain of criticism!\n\nSome, again, when the text is not called in question, turn their\ningenuity another way, and strike out new modes of interpretation. They\nmangle and disfigure plain facts, or resolve them into allegories:\nof this class were those primitive heresiarchs, who maintained that\n_Christ was not come in the flesh_[284], and that _the Resurrection was\npast already_[285]; and of the same family, too, are those presumptuous\nmoderns, of whatever name, who stumble at the cross of Christ, and sink\nthe doctrine of Redemption in a metaphor.\n\nA third sort excell in puzzling a clear text, in putting a violent\nconstruction on artless words, in explaining mysteries by metaphysics,\nor, to get rid of them at once, in making the plain fishermen of Galilee\nspeak the language of Platonism, or of the Jewish cabbala.\n\nIn a word, it would be endless to specify all those, who by studied\ndevices, of various kinds, mutilate, prevert, misinterpret, confound the\nword of God, obtruding their own sense upon it, and finding any thing\nthere rather than the plain obvious mind of the Revealer.\n\nAnd why is all this industry employed, these daring liberties taken?\nWhy to make _Christianity not mysterious_, to shew how reasonable its\ndoctrines are, and to remove all objections against them. The pretence is\nfair. But shall we then admit nothing in scripture, in that scripture\nwhich we call divine, but what we perfectly understand, and can make\nappear, in all its parts, to harmonize with our systems? Alas, what is\nthis, but to prescribe to the Spirit of God; to substitute our wisdom\nin the place of his; in a word, to be ashamed of Christ\u2019s words, and to\nidolize our own reason.\n\nTo give one remarkable instance, out of many, of this false shame. If\nthere be any thing clearly revealed in holy scripture, it is, that there\nis a world of spirits, good and bad: and of the last, that there is ONE,\nplaced at the head of them, who sets himself in opposition (as indeed all\nbad men do) to the will of God; who had a share in seducing our first\nparents, and still works in the children of disobedience; who was even\npermitted to tempt Christ, and to possess Judas; in a word, who is styled\nthe _Prince of this world_, and, for the overthrow of whose empire,\nprincipally, the Son of God came down from heaven: If I say, there be any\nclear undisputed point of doctrine in the Gospel, it is this: the whole\nscheme of Christianity depends upon it: and yet what pains have not been\ntaken to exterminate evil spirits, and disenchant the world of them;\nalthough by such methods, as would render language itself of no use, and\nconfound all the rules of just criticism and sober interpretation?\n\nThese interpreters, I know, pretend (and many of them, I dare say, with\ngood faith) a zeal for the honour of God, in their attempts of this\nnature. But let them look deep into themselves. They will, perhaps,\nfind, that they are paying, at the same time, a secret homage to their\nown understandings, as if the whole of God\u2019s moral government lay open\nto their view, and they were able to pervade every part of it; that they\nhold a revelation in no esteem, which puzzles their philosophy; and that,\ntherefore, they force a meaning of their own on the words of Christ,\nbecause they are inwardly _ashamed_ of that, in which his words are most\nnaturally to be taken.\n\nLeaving, then, these rationalists to the scrutiny of their own inmost\nthoughts, let us inquire,\n\n2. What regard is due to the _words_ of Christ, considered not as\narticles of belief, but _rules of practice_.\n\nAnd here, I doubt, it must be acknowledged that we have, all of us, more\nor less, been _ashamed_ of our divine Master. For we are convicted of\nthis shame, whenever we disobey his commands, seen and admitted to be\n_his_, on account of any repugnancy they have to the fashion of the\nworld, and to the consideration we affect to have in it. And who is\nthere, that, in this respect, can hope to stand clear of all blame, _when\nhe is judged_?\n\n_Be meek and lowly of heart_, says our Lord. On the contrary, we are\nproud and arrogant, that we may not be thought to want spirit. _Take no\nthought for to-morrow_, are the words of Christ: but the world says, be\nrich and great; and we think of nothing else but _to-morrow_. _Blessed\nare the pure in heart_, says our spotless Preceptor: Are we not _ashamed_\nof these words, when we had rather run the risk of any defilement, than\nappear unfashionable? And so in a multitude of other instances.\n\nStill, perhaps, we respect the rule, in some sort, and blame ourselves\nfor the breach of it.\n\nBut what shall we say of those, who reject the _word spoken_ with a high\nhand, and offend against it on principle, as we may say, and by system?\n\n_Go and sin no more_, says our Lord to an adulteress convict; and his\nwords imply a severe censure of having sinned at all, in that instance.\nBut are there none who think this a hard saying, who regard it as a\nnarrow prejudice; who treat the observance of it as a needless scruple;\nnay, who pique themselves on the violation of it? Are there not some,\nwho delight in this sin by way of preference? who lay it down for a\nmaxim, that this commerce, under certain circumstances, and covered with\na certain veil of manners, is allowable, is reputable, is meritorious?\nNay, are there not those who would take it ill to be thought incapable of\naspiring to that distinction, which, in certain quarters, this commerce\nsupposes?\n\nBut let me not enlarge farther on this horrid subject. Consider only,\nwhether the parties concerned must not deride a precept, which they are\nproud to transgress, and whether in the saddest sense of the word, they\nmay not be said to be _ashamed_ of it.\n\nANOTHER instance occurs, the mention of which, I am sensible, can be\nof no farther use than to illustrate my subject. A placability of\ntemper, the forgiveness of injuries, the love of our enemies, nothing\nis more insisted upon in the Gospel, than these virtues, which make\nthe very essence of a Christian\u2019s temper. The precepts to this purpose\nare numberless and express, and enforced with all possible authority.\nYet, to persons, in certain conjunctures, and of a certain rank in the\nworld, it would be an affront, but to remind them of their duty. We\nknow, who it was, that, _when he was reviled, reviled not again, when\nhe suffered, threatened not, but committed himself to him who judgeth\nrighteously_[286]. But what then? Neither precept, nor example, moves\nhim, who calls himself a man of honour, and is the slave of fashion. He\nhas command enough of himself to assume an air of tranquillity, and to\nobserve all the forms of good-breeding. But his hate is rancorous, his\nresentment hot as hell, his revenge, immortal. Let his pretences be what\nthey will, his conduct cries aloud to all the world, \u201cI renounce the\nGospel, I am _ashamed_ of the meek and merciful religion of Jesus.\u201d\n\nTo conclude: We now understand in what ways, and in how many respects,\nwe may be _ashamed of Christ and his words_. In recounting those several\nways, whether respecting the name and dignity of our Lord, or the\nrule of faith and practice, which he has given us, we have seen, at\nthe same time, how little, how base, how ungrateful, how impious, how\ninexcusable, in all views, this _shame_ is: especially in all those,\nwho wear the name, and do not wholly disclaim the faith, of a Christian.\nMore words would be thrown away on those, who are insensible to such\nconsiderations. Or, if any further remonstrance can be of use, if there\nbe a motive left that can reach their case, it must be one, that alarms\ntheir fears, and shews the danger, the unspeakable hazard, to which they\nexpose themselves by this miserable conduct. And, in the whole extent of\nGod\u2019s word, there is not, in the nature of things there cannot be, a more\nawakening, a more terrible denunciation, than that of the text, which\ntherefore I cannot do better than leave with you in its own proper form,\nas pronounced by our Lord himself\u2014_Whoever shall be ashamed of me and of\nmy words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in\nhis own glory, and in his Father\u2019s, and of the holy Angels_.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON LII.\n\nPREACHED JANUARY 29, 1775.\n\nSt. MATTH. xvi. 18.\n\n_I say also unto thee, that thou art_ PETER, _and upon this rock I will\nbuild my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_.\n\n\nThe way of giving a new name to an eminent person, more immediately\nconcerned in any great transaction; a name, expressive of that\ntransaction, and therefore proper to fix and perpetuate the memory of\nit; this custom, I say, was of known use in the ancient world. Thus,\nwhen God renewed his covenant with _Abram_, and engaged to _multiply\nhim exceedingly_, the name of this patriarch was changed to _Abraham_;\nwhich name, in the Hebrew language, signifies _the father of a great\nmultitude_[287]: and, for a like reason, the patriarch _Jacob_ took the\nname of _Israel_[288]; to omit many other instances of this usage, which\noccur in the sacred scriptures.\n\nJust so, when one of the Apostles, known before by the name of _Simon_,\nhad made a memorable confession of his Master\u2019s being _the Christ, the\nson of the living God_, i. e. the redeemer, the prince of Israel, the\nMessiah foretold, our blessed Lord, to give weight and emphasis to this\nconfession, confers a new name upon him. For he _answered and said unto\nhim, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; for flesh and blood hath not\nrevealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven_: That is, no\nman hath revealed this great truth to thee, nor has any interest of man,\nany thing, indeed, but the spirit of God, influencing thy impartial and\nwell-disposed mind, prompted thee to entertain and avow it thus heartily\nand publicly (the proofs of it not being, at present, so strong, as they\nhereafter shall be): Therefore, to express my approbation of this great\ntestimony to a truth, which is the fundamental article of my religion,\nand, at the same time, to signify to thee the honour, with which I mean\nto reward thee for it, _I further say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon\nthis rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst it_.\n\nThe name, _Peter_, signifying a _rock_ in the Greek language, implies,\nwe see, the immoveable truth of the confession, here made, on which the\nChristian religion was to be built; and the immoveable firmness, too,\nof the Confessor, who should have a share, with the other Apostles, in\nsupporting the whole fabric, and be himself, in point of time, the first\nstone, on which the glorious superstructure was to be made.\n\nIt follows\u2014_and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_\u2014that is,\n_Death_, or _Destruction_ (for that, only, the oriental phrase\u2014_the gates\nof hell_\u2014here signifies[289]) shall never prevail against this church,\nbeing founded on thee, and the testimony, made by thee, as on a rock of\nages, which shall never give way, or be removed.\n\nWe see, then, the full meaning of this famous text, which contains, in\neffect, TWO prophecies: ONE, respecting the foundation of the Christian\nchurch, and (so far as the Apostle Peter was personally concerned in\nthe prediction) then verified, when Peter laid the first stone of this\naugust building in the converts made by him both among the Jews[290] and\nGentiles[291]: the OTHER prophecy, respecting the perpetuity of this\nchurch; which the divine Providence would, in no future age of the world,\npermit to be destroyed.\n\nSo that, not the supremacy of Peter over the rest of the Apostles (as the\nchurch of Rome vainly pretends), but the priority of his claim, in point\nof time, to signal services in the conversion of mankind, is expressed\nin this memorable promise made to Peter\u2014_on this rock will I build my\nchurch_: and, for the second assurance, here given, and which, to so\nzealous a master-builder, as our Apostle, must have been singularly\nwelcome\u2014_that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it_\u2014we may,\nnow, by the experience of more than seventeen hundred years, understand,\nhow far it has been, and how likely it is, in the full extent of the\nwords, to be fulfilled.\n\nBut, to see little more distinctly what this experience is, and what\npresumption arises out of it for the truth of our holy religion, let us\ncall to mind, if you please, the more remarkable of those attacks, which\nhave been made, at different times, on the church of Christ, and yet how\nconstantly and successfully they have been repelled.\n\nI. No sooner had the foundations of the church been laid on the _rock_\nof this testimony\u2014that _Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God_\u2014than the\nstorms of persecution arose, and beat violently upon it. Nor was it,\nindeed, strange, that this new doctrine, published every where, with\ngreat boldness, by men who had been eye-witnesses of what they affirmed,\nand calculated to overturn all the favourite maxims and usages of the\nworld, should meet with the fiercest opposition. And how easy did it seem\nfor that world to crush the infant society, now struggling for life in\nthe hands of twelve poor, illiterate, and friendless men, if the decree\nof Heaven had not gone forth\u2014_that the gates of hell should not prevail\nagainst it_!\n\nI know, indeed, that this violence of persecution was, in the end, of\nadvantage to the Christian cause; and, from the nature of the human mind,\nwhen once persuaded of any thing, true or false, might be expected to be\nso. For cruelty, in such cases, only excites an unconquerable firmness\nand perseverance. But what was persuasion in succeeding converts to the\ngospel of Christ, was knowledge, or rather the infallible evidence of\nsense, in the first publishers of it. The Apostles witnessed a matter of\nfact, when they made known the resurrection of Christ, on which their\nwhole doctrine rested. And it is not in nature for any single man, much\nless for twelve men, to suffer, and to die, for a false fact, not taken\nupon trust from others, but asserted on their own proper and personal\nexperience. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, they neither saw, nor\nfelt, nor conversed with him after his resurrection, that is, they had\nno persuasion for force to harden into obstinacy, but a consciousness of\nfalshood in their attestation, which could not have held out against the\nrage of their persecutors[292].\n\nIf it be said, that criminals are often supposed, and not without reason,\nto die with a falshood in their mouths, I answer, it is very possible:\nbut, besides that the Apostles gave no signs, in the rest of their\nconduct, of a want of principle, by declaring the truth, in this case,\nthey might have saved their lives, whereas a criminal, for the most part,\nis but the more likely to lose his, by a true confession.\n\nOr, if, lastly (for suspicion, I am aware, is not easily satisfied,\nif) the perseverance of the martyred apostles be accounted for from a\nfalse point of honour, I admit, that this strange principle sometimes\noverpowers conviction; but rarely, in any number of men confederated in\nthe same cause, and, least of all, in a number of men of so plain and\nartless characters, as the Apostles.\n\nOn the whole, we have reason to conclude, that, if Christianity had not\nbeen true, it must have perished with its first preachers: at least,\nit cannot be denied, that in outliving the violence, with which it was\nassaulted, both by Jew and Gentile, on its appearance in the world, this\nreligion has thus far verified the remarkable prediction of its author.\n\nII. The external peace of the church was scarce settled under\nConstantine, when internal commotions shook its frame, and with a\nviolence, which was likely to bring on, and that in no long time, its\nentire dissolution. By these commotions, I mean the heresies, that\nsprung up in abundance, and distracted the Christian world for several\ncenturies. The zeal, or rather fury, with which these disputes were\ncarried on, was unappeasable; and, if it be true, that _a house divided\nagainst itself cannot stand_, there was reason to expect that the\nhoushold of Christ would exemplify this maxim: While, at the same time,\nthe Christian name was so dishonoured by these contentions, and the\nlives, as well as the faith, of Christians, so polluted by them, that\nbelievers themselves were almost tempted to renounce a profession, which\nlaboured under so much infamy; and the rest of the world could scarce\nfail to contract an incurable aversion to it.\n\nThis, indeed, was so much the case, and the advantage, given to the\nenemies of our faith, by these scandalous abuses of it, so great, that\none is not surprised to find\n\nIII. A _third_, and still more alarming danger of the Christian church,\nin the sudden rise and propagation of the Mahometan religion.\n\nFor it was the corruption of Christianity, that gave occasion, or\nsuccess, at least, to this daring imposture. And now it might seem, that\n_the gates of hell_ were set wide open, and destruction ready to rush\nupon, and seize, its defenceless prey, the Christian church, disheartened\nand disabled by its own vices. The uncontroulable spirit of this ruthless\nsect was, indeed, alarming to the last degree; when a secret providence,\nfirst, softened its ferocity, and, then, put a stop to its successes.\n\nI ascribe these effects to the _good providence of God_, watching\nover the preservation of our holy faith; for what else could make the\ndisciples of Mahomet tolerant in spite of their ignorance and bigotry;\nand pacific, when their law breathed nothing but war and universal\ndominion?\n\nStill the church had other trials to undergo; and _hell_ had yet in\nreserve some further engines of its wrath to employ against her. For\n\nIV. While the African and Asiatic Christians were in danger of a total\nsuppression by the rage of their Ottoman masters, the European had almost\nas much to apprehend from exhaustless swarms of Northern barbarians.\nAnd, what darkened the prospect still more, all knowledge and learning\nhad disappeared, during these turbulent ages. Hence, to the destructive\nfanaticism of the East, was added the grossest _superstition_ of the\nWest; which, growing up in a long night of ignorance, and yet directed by\npolicy towards the establishment of a vast and gloomy empire, involved\nall Christendom in its pestilential shade, and threatened the very\nextinction of all true religion.\n\nYet it pleased God, in this distressful state of his church, to provide\nfor its continuance, and even integrity, in due time, by making the\ncloystered ignorance of the Monks serve to the preservation of the sacred\ncanon; and the enslaving projects of a tyrannical hierarchy, to the\nrestoration of religious and civil liberty.\n\nAnd thus, though the powers of _hell_ had been successively let loose\nagainst the church of Christ in the terrible shapes, first, of Jewish\nand Gentile persecution; then, of heresy, in the church itself; next,\nof Mahometan enthusiasm; and, lastly, of Antichristian superstition;\nyet have they not prevailed against this sacred structure, founded on a\n_rock_, guarded, as we believe, by heaven itself, and therefore destined\nto be eternal.\n\nI have touched these several particulars slightly and rapidly, just to\nput you in mind of what the Christian religion has endured, since its\nappearance in the world; and to let you see how unlikely it is that this\nreligion should have kept its ground against these various and multiplied\nattacks, if it had not been divinely protected.\n\nBut of all the trials, to which it has been exposed, the greatest by far,\nif this religion had been an imposture, is ONE, which I have not yet\nmentioned; and that is, _the examination of severe, enlightened Reason_.\n\nAnd this trial, to complete its honour, our divine faith hath TWICE\nundergone: _once_, in the very season of its birth; and now, _again_,\nfor two or three centuries, since the revival of letters, in our Western\nworld: periods, both of them, distinguished, in the annals of mankind,\nby a more than common degree of light and knowledge; which must, in the\nnature of things, have been fatal to any scheme of religion, pretending\nonly to a divine original, and not really so descended.\n\nBut this part of the argument is too large, as well as too important, for\nme to enter upon at present. Let me therefore conclude with a short and\ninteresting reflexion on so much of it, as we have been considering.\n\nIt was natural, no doubt, for the author of a new religion, full of his\nscheme, and impressed with the importance of it, to promise to himself\nthe perpetuity of his work. But a wise man might easily conjecture that\na religion, like the Christian, would meet with the fiercest opposition:\nand, though this be not a proper time to shew it, it might be shewn, that\n_the spirit of Christ_[293] distinctly foresaw the several species of\nopposition, which his religion had to encounter[294].\n\nYet, in the face of all these perils, our Lord predicts, in the most\ndirect and positive terms, that his church should brave them all, and\nsubsist for ever. It has subsisted to this day, after encountering such\nstorms of persecution and distress, as must, in all likelihood, have\noverturned any human fabrick. Is not the true solution of the fact, this,\nthat it was founded on _the word of God, which endureth for ever_[295]?\nThe rest, then, follows of course. The wise master-builder (to use his\nown words on another occasion, near akin to this) _had built his house\nupon a_ ROCK: _and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds\nblew and beat upon that house: and it_ FELL NOT, _for it was founded upon\na_ ROCK[296].\n\n\n\n\nSERMON LIII.\n\nPREACHED FEBRUARY 5, 1775.\n\nSt. MATTH. xvi. 18.\n\n_And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will\nbuild my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it._\n\n\nThe religion of Jesus hath descended to us, through TWO, the most\nenlightened ages of the world. It was, first, published in the reign of\nTiberius: It was re-published, as we may say, at the Reformation: and is\nit likely, that an imposture should have made its way in the _former_\nof these periods? Or, is it possible, it should still keep its ground\nagainst the influence of all that light and knowledge, by which the\n_latter_ has been distinguished?\n\nTo see what force there is in these questions, permit me to lay before\nyou a slight sketch of the trials, to which Christianity has been exposed\nfrom the improved reason of ancient and modern times, and of the effect,\nwhich those trials appear to have had on the credit and reception of that\nReligion.\n\nI. Jesus preached the Gospel in the reign of Tiberius: that is, in a time\nof profound peace, when arts and letters were generally diffused through\nthe Roman empire; and in Judea, at that time a Roman province. So far was\nthis thing from being _done in a corner_[297]!\n\nThis religion, on its first appearance in the world, had therefore to\nencounter two sorts of men, well qualified, and not less disposed, to\ngive it a severe examination; I mean, the learned JEWS, on the one hand,\nand the reasoning GENTILES, on the other. Yet it prevailed against all\nthe efforts of both.\n\nIt was, first, proposed to the JEWS, and its pretensions were to be tried\nby the correspondence of its principles and history to the doctrine and\npredictions of their sacred books. That vastly the greater part of the\nJewish nation resisted the evidence of that appeal, is well known: but\nthat great numbers did not, and, of these, that some, at least, were\nof principal note for their rank, and knowledge in the scriptures, is\nequally certain and allowed; with this further concession, that the\nevidence, whatever it was, prevailed over the most inveterate prejudices,\nthat ever possessed any people, and the most alarming difficulties and\ndiscouragements, to which human nature can be exposed. Let the fact,\nthen, be considered, with all its circumstances, on both sides. And as to\nthe merit of the argument, we are well able to judge of it. The sacred\nwritings of the Jews, to which the appeal lay, are in all hands: and with\nwhat triumphant superiority the followers of Jesus reasoned from them, we\nsee, in their numerous works, still extant, and especially in those of\nthe great Apostle, St. Paul. So that, if all the scriptural learning, and\nall the bigotry of Judaism, could not stop the progress of Christianity,\nas we know it did not, it may fairly be presumed, that the way of inquiry\nwas not unfavourable to the new religion, and that truth and reason were\non that side. But\n\n2. From the Jews, let us turn to the GENTILES, at that time flourishing\nin arts and letters. To them was the Gospel preached by the Apostles,\nand especially by their Apostle, St. Paul, through the whole extent\nof the Roman empire; and not without success in the head quarters of\nGentilism, in the chief towns of Asia, in Greece, at Athens, and even at\nRome itself.\n\nThe pride of Gentile wisdom, indeed, kept its professors, for some time,\nfrom taking more than a superficial notice of the new religion. But\nits rapid progress among the people, joined to its declared purpose of\nprescribing to the general faith of mankind, broke through this real or\naffected indifference, rouzed, at length, the attention of the great\nand wise, and provoked the zeal of both to shew itself in every mode of\nopposition. The great persecuted, and the wise reasoned: and this latter\nspecies of hostility (the more alarming of the two, if Christianity had\nbeen an imposture) was carried on with vigour, and without intermission\n(whatever intervals there might be of the _former_) through several\nsuccessive ages. The four Gospels, and the other authentic documents of\nour religion, were now in all hands, when this lettered war commenced\nagainst Christianity, and continued, till Paganism was utterly overthrown\nand subdued. Many adversaries of the Christian name engaged in this\nunequal contest: but the most distinguished are, CELSUS, in the second\ncentury; PORPHYRY, in the third; and JULIAN, in the fourth: all of them,\neminent philosophers; and the last of this great triumvirate, an imperial\none. The two first wrote with all freedom, because against a persecuted,\nand on the side of the predominant, religion; and the third had the whole\npower of the state in his own hands.\n\nThe works of these great chieftains of infidelity, it must be owned, are\nnot extant in their proper form. But Celsus is almost entire in Origen; a\ngreat part of Julian may be seen in Cyril; and considerable fragments of\nPorphyry\u2019s work have been preserved in Jerom and other old writers.\n\nYe do not expect me to produce, on this occasion, the substance of what\nthese three philosophers have said against the Christian cause. Any that\nwill, may see it in the original authors, just mentioned, or in many\nmodern collections, that have been made out of them. It may be enough to\nsay, that those, who give themselves this trouble, will find much abuse\nand misrepresentation, and some argument: but the last so weak, and\ninconclusive, that one cannot wonder much at what Chrysostom tells us,\n\u201cThat the early books, written against Christianity, soon fell into a\ngeneral contempt; that they perished almost as fast as they appeared; and\nthat, if they still subsisted any where, it was, because they had been\npreserved by the Christians themselves[298].\u201d\n\nBut, setting aside, for the present, the merits of the question,\nthe fact[299], we know, is, that all the efforts of Greek and Roman\nphilosophy were not successful: that the church was soon filled with\nits professors, even before the empire became Christian: and that this\ngreat event itself happened within little more than three centuries from\nthe birth of Christ. _So mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed_,\nnotwithstanding the severity, with which its pretensions were tried.\n\nIt will be said, however, \u201cthat the argument, drawn from the success of\nChristianity, is not altogether so convincing, as we pretend: that, for\na time, the learned heathens paid but little attention to the new sect;\nthat, when it had taken such root among the people as to become the\ngeneral subject of inquiry, learning was now very much on the decline;\nthat barbarism had prevailed to a great degree before the days of\nConstantine, and then increased so fast, especially after the irruption\nof the Northern nations, as to leave no traces, almost, of light and\nknowledge; and that to this sottish state of ignorance, and, its usual\nattendant, credulity, which continued through many ages, the widely\nextended and permanent establishments of Christianity are, therefore,\nmost probably to be ascribed.\u201d\n\nNow, though I cannot assent to what is here alledged, or insinuated, that\nthe adversaries of Christianity wanted either time, or light, or zeal\nenough to discredit its pretensions, if the way of reason and disputation\ncould have done it, before that long night of ignorance came on which\nis supposed to be so favourable to religious imposture; yet I will not\ndeny that taste and literature were degenerating in the Roman empire,\nfrom the time that learned pagans began to interest themselves in the\ncontroversy with the Christians; and that, therefore, had the last only\nprevailed through this period of declining letters, something would have\nbeen wanting to the force and integrity of that argument, which infers\nthe truth of their cause, from its success. But the fact is, that the\nevent has been the same, in opposite circumstances; as I shall now shew,\n\nII. Under the SECOND head of this discourse; in which I proposed to point\nout to you, very briefly, the influence of REVIVING, AND REVIVED letters\non the credit and reception of the Christian faith.\n\nFrom the middle of the 14th century, and even earlier, there were some\nefforts made to break through that gloom of ignorance and superstition,\nwhich had so long overspread the Christian world; and, before the end\nof it, it was visible enough that these efforts would, in no long time,\nbe attended with success. Accordingly, a zeal for true and ancient\nliterature made its way through most parts of Europe, and with so rapid\na progress, that multitudes of able men arose within the compass of the\nnext century, and were enough instructed to assist in the reformation\nof religion, which followed in the commencement of the 16th. From that\ntime to the present, arts and letters have been studied with unceasing\napplication; and all the powers of reason put forth in the cultivation\nof knowledge, in the discovery of error, and the search of truth. It is\npretended, that we are now enlightened beyond the example of all former\nages: it is credible, that, in some places, where liberty has attended\nthe pursuits of learning, the utmost ability of the human mind, on the\nmost important objects of science, has been exerted and displayed.\n\nNow, amidst this blaze of light, gradually ascending from the dawn\nof science to its meridian lustre, what has been the fortune of the\ndivine religion, we profess? It has been the first, and last object of\nattention. It has been examined with the most suspicious and sceptical\ncuriosity. It has stood the attacks of wit, of learning, of philosophy;\nand, sometimes, of all these acting in concert, without any restraint or\nreserve whatsoever. Yet it keeps its ground; or rather the belief of it\nis entertained, not only by the multitude, but, more firmly than ever, by\nthe ablest and wisest men.\n\nFor the truth of this assertion, I can only refer you to your own fair\nand candid observation; the proof of it being much too long to be given,\nat this time. For it would require me to set before you the several\ntopics of argument, which have been employed against Christianity, and\nthe futility of them. It would, further, oblige me to make appear, that\nthe number of those, who still embrace Christianity, is not only vastly\ngreater, but their names, too, beyond comparison, more respectable, than\nof those who reject it: all which it would be tedious, indeed, but not\ndifficult to shew.\n\nHowever, till some such proof be produced, ye will be apt, I know, to\nremind me of many eminent persons, who have been the declared enemies of\nour religion: ye will object to me the complaints, which even divines\nmake, of an overflowing infidelity in the present times.\n\nIn abatement of this prejudice, I could say with much truth, that the\ncharacter of those eminent persons has been raised too high; and that\nthese complaints, though not without foundation, have been carried too\nfar. But I have other, and more momentous considerations to suggest to\nyou, on this subject.\n\nAt the revival of letters, when the manifold corruptions of Christianity\nhad been discovered, it was too natural for the disabused mind to\nentertain some suspicions of the revelation itself; and when reason, now\nemancipated from authority, had tried its strength, and found itself able\nto detect innumerable errors in religion and science, it too hastily\nconcluded that there was no subject too vast for its comprehension,\nand that its power and right to decide on all questions whatsoever was\nevident and beyond dispute. From that suspicious, and this delirious\nstate of the human mind, infidelity sprung up, and on either stock it\nstill grows. \u201cWe have been deceived in many things, with regard to this\nreligion; therefore in every thing.\u201d \u201cWe know much; therefore we are\ncapable of knowing all things.\u201d\u2014These, as extravagant as they appear, are\nthe two sophisms, into which all modern free-thinking is to be resolved.\n\nBut now it is so evident to men of sense, that \u201ca revelation may be\ntrue, though much imposture has been grafted upon it, and that its\ndoctrines may challenge our belief, though they be not within the reach\nof our knowledge.\u201d This, I say, is now so uncontroverted among men of\nsense, that, if the list of those, who, in the course of two or three\ncenturies, have supported the infidel cause on those grounds, were\never so great or so conspicuous, it could furnish no argument, or even\npresumption, in favour of that cause itself.\n\nBut the truth is, that list is neither formidable for its numbers, nor\nfor the capacity of those, of whom it consists. It shrinks into nothing,\nwhen we oppose to it the multitudes of able men, who have been, during\nthis period, and are, the advocates of Christianity; and, among these,\nwhen we recollect the names of Grotius, Pascal, Bacon, Locke, Boyle,\nNewton, and many others (not of the sacred order, though I know not why\nthe authority of these should be left out of the account); when, I say,\nwe look up to these great lights and ornaments of the Christian world.\n\nNor let it be surmized, that the reasonings of infidel writers have been\nbetter, or other, than they are here represented to be, or that they have\nnot been enforced with full liberty, and in all their strength. What\nthe liberty, or rather licence, of these enlightened times has been, we\nall know: And of their arguments, ye may all judge: though this labour\nbe the less necessary, as most of them have not only been triumphantly\nconfuted by believers, but successively exploded by unbelievers\nthemselves; and the rest of them, have not prevented men of thought and\nability from being generally on the side of the Christian religion, even\nto this day.\n\nYe see, I am as concise as possible, and omit very much of what might\nbe said on this subject, not to exceed the limits usually prescribed to\na discourse in this place. But when ye contemplate the present state\nof Christianity, in an age of the greatest light and freedom, and the\nrespect that is still paid to it, I must just desire you to call to\nmind the state of pagan religion under the like circumstances; and to\nreflect that, when men of sense examined its pretensions in the Augustan\nage, there was not a single person, in the priesthood or out of it, of\nability and learning, who did not see and know that the whole was a\nmanifest imposture, and destitute of all evidence, that could induce a\nwell-grounded and rational assent[300]. Can any thing like this be said,\nor even suspected, of the Christian faith?\n\nI know, that fraud and falsehood, by being mixed with a great deal of\nacknowledged evident truth, may obtain respect even with some acute and\ninquisitive men; as, without doubt, has been the case of Popery, since\nthe Reformation: I know, too, that a false religion, unsupported by any\ntruth, may even keep its ground in a learned age, when restraint or other\ncauses have prevented a free inquiry into that religion; as may have been\nthe case of Mahometanism, in one stage of the Saracen empire: but that\na religion, like the Christian, as delivered in the Scriptures, which\nmust either be wholly false, or wholly true, and has been scrutinized\nwith the utmost freedom and severity, should yet, if the arguments for it\nwere weak and fallacious, maintain its credit, and subsist in the belief\nof the most capable and accomplished reasoners, is, I think, a prodigy,\nwhich never has appeared, or can appear among men.\n\nI suppose, enough has been, now, said to shew, that, in fact, the\nknowledge of past or present times has not discredited the cause of\nChristianity; and that what there is of infidelity may be well accounted\nfor from certain prevailing prejudices, which unhappily sprung up with\nreturning Letters, at the Reformation. I might go on to shew, that the\nevidences of the Christian religion, as drawn out, and set before us, by\nits modern apologists, are now stronger, and more convincing, than they\never were in any former period; and that, on the whole, this religion has\nnot lost, but gained infinitely, by all the inquiries, which improved\nscience has enabled men of leisure and curiosity to make into it. But it\nis time to return to the TEXT, and to conclude this commentary upon it,\nwith one or two short reflexions.\n\nFIRST, if it be true, that after so many trials of every kind, those\nespecially of reason, and philosophy, to which the religion of the Gospel\nhas been exposed, the belief of it remains unshaken in the minds of men,\nThen is the prophecy of the text thus far signally verified; and it is\nindisputable, that _the gates of hell have not_, hitherto, _prevailed\nagainst it_.\n\nSECONDLY, if it be scarce imaginable that any future trials, from\nwithout, should be more severe, than those which Christianity has already\nsuffered; or that those, from within, I mean the trials of severe\nrational inquiry, should be more formidable, than what it has undergone\nin two periods, the most distinguished for the free exertion of the\nhuman faculties, of any that have occurred in the history of the world;\nthen may it seem credible, or rather then is the presumption strong and\ncogent, that neither, hereafter, will the prophecy be confuted, and that\nthe _gates of hell shall not_, at any time, or at all, _prevail against\nit_.\n\nTHIRDLY, and lastly, We may learn, from both these conclusions, to put\nour trust in this impregnable fortress of our Religion; to embrace with\nstedfastness, and to observe with the utmost reverence, a RULE OF FAITH\nAND LIFE, which bears the signatures of immortality upon it, and appears\nto be under the special protection, as it proceeded originally from the\nspecial favour and authority, of God himself.\n\n\n\n\n A\n\n LARGER DISCOURSE,\n\n BY WAY OF\n\n COMMENTARY,\n\n ON\n\n THAT REMARKABLE PART\n\n OF\n\n THE GOSPEL-HISTORY,\n\n IN WHICH\n\n JESUS IS REPRESENTED,\n\n AS DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS\n OUT OF THE TEMPLE.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nDISCOURSE[301]\n\nON\n\nCHRIST\u2019S DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE.\n\n\nI propose, in this discourse, to take into consideration a very\nremarkable part of the Gospel-history; in which Jesus is supposed to have\nexercised an act of authority on some persons, whom the Jews permitted to\ncarry on a certain traffic within the walls of the Temple.\n\nI shall, FIRST, recite the several accounts, which the sacred historians\nhave given of this transaction; and shall, THEN, hazard some\nobservations, which will, perhaps, be found to lessen, or to remove, the\nobjections commonly made to it.\n\nI begin with St. John\u2019s account of it, which is delivered in these words:\n\n Ch. ii. 13-17.\n\n \u201cAnd the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to\n Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and\n sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting: And when\n he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out\n of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the\n changers money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them\n that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father\u2019s\n house an house of merchandize. And his disciples remembered\n that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.\u201d\n\nThus far the Evangelist, St. John: And the order of the history shews,\nthat this was done at the _first_ Passover which Jesus attended, after\nhe had taken upon himself his prophetic office.\n\nThe other Evangelists relate a similar transaction, which had happened at\nthe Passover, immediately preceding his crucifixion. Some have imagined\nthat, on this last occasion, the same act was repeated by him, on two\nseveral days; but I see no sufficient ground for that supposition.\nSt. Mark is easily reconciled with St. Matthew and St. Luke by only\nadmitting, what is very usual in the sacred writers, some little neglect\nof method in the narration of one or other of those historians.\n\n Mat. xxi. 12, 13.\n\n \u201cAnd Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them\n that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables\n of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,\n and said unto them, it is written, My house shall be called the\n house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.\u201d\n\n Mark xi. 15-17.\n\n \u201cAnd they come to Jerusalem: And Jesus went into the temple,\n and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple,\n and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats\n of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man\n should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught,\n saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called\n of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den\n of thieves.\u201d\n\n Luke xix. 45, 46.\n\n \u201cAnd he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that\n sold therein, and them that bought, saying unto them, It is\n written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a\n den of thieves.\u201d\n\nIn reading these passages, one is led to conclude, that the ACT itself,\nhere ascribed to our Lord, was of no small importance; for it is related,\nwe see, by every one of the four Evangelists. The substance of what we\nlearn from all of them, compared together, is this: \u201cThat Jesus, at two\nseveral times, _once_, before the first Passover which he attended\nafter the entrance on his ministry, and _again_, before the Passover\nwhich preceded his passion, went up to Jerusalem, and entered into the\n_temple_; that is (as all interpreters agree, and as the nature of the\nthing speaks) into the _first_, or outermost court of the temple, or\nthat which was called _the court of the Gentiles_; because the Gentiles,\nwho acknowledged the one true God, were permitted to come and worship\nhim there; that in this court (which was separated from the next or\nsecond court by a sept or low wall, and deemed by the Jews _prophane_,\nin contempt of the Gentiles, to whose use it was dedicated) _he found\nthose that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money_;\nthat is, persons who attended there to furnish what was necessary for the\nservice of the temple, and so made a kind of market, of this first court\nor division of it: that, upon observing this prophanation, _he made a\nscourge of small cords_, or, as the word in the original strictly means,\nof _rushes_, such as he may be supposed to have found upon the spot, and\nwith this scourge drove these traffickers from their station; signifying,\nby this and such like actions, his displeasure at this pollution of a\npart of the temple; and saying to them, withall, _It is written, My house\nshall be called the house of prayer of all nations: But ye have made it\nan house of merchandize_, or, as the equivalent expression is, _a den of\nthieves_.\u201d\n\nThus stands the history itself: And the light in which it is commonly\nunderstood, is this; \u201cThat Jesus, in virtue of his prophetic, or, if you\nwill, _regal_ character, did this act of authority, to testify his zeal\nfor the honour of God\u2019s house, thus polluted and desecrated, contrary to\nits original purpose and design, by the base and commercial uses, that\nwere now made of it;\u201d and it is probable, that the Disciples themselves,\n_at the time_, considered it in this light, only, _for they remembered_,\nSt. John says, _that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten\nme up_\u2014applying a passage out of the Psalms, to this act of zeal in their\nmaster.\n\nIt is true, this circumstance is only related by St. John, who records\nthe _former_ transaction, and omits the _latter_: the reason of this\ndifference will, perhaps, be seen, as we proceed in our inquiry.\n\nBut to this solution of the case some objections have been made.\n\nBesides the strangeness and indecency, as many apprehend, of the\nproceeding itself, and the improbability that the persons concerned\nin this chastisement, who had public allowance for what they did,\nshould patiently submit to it (for we hear of no resistance, nor of any\ncomplaint, made by them)\u2014Besides, I say, these obvious considerations,\nthe act itself was an act of CIVIL POWER, which Jesus always disclaimed,\nand for which, it will be said, he had no warrant, either from the\nruling Jews, themselves, or from his regal, or prophetic character: not,\nfrom _the ruling Jews_, who, we know, were offended at his behaviour;\nnot, from his _regal_ character, which was not of this world; nor yet,\nlastly, from his _prophetic_ office: for, though that might authorize\nhim to declare his sense of this prophanation, it may be thought not to\nextend so far as to justify him in disturbing the civil rights of men,\nand doing a direct violence to their property and persons. Jesus himself,\nwe understand, was so tender of _both_, that, upon another occasion,\nwhen it was proposed to him to divide a contested inheritance between\ntwo claimants, he said to the proposer, _Man, who made me a judge, or a\ndivider over you_[302]? Whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he\nwould not have interposed, by an overt act of authority or jurisdiction,\nin _this_ case; notwithstanding the reference it had to the honour of\nreligion, or the right he might have to condemn an abusive practice,\nfrom his spiritual character.\n\nThese difficulties seem to shew, that there is something more in the\ncase, than a mere expression of zeal against the prophaners of the\ntemple: not but this might be one end, but it could not be the sole or\neven principal end, of so extraordinary a transaction.\n\nI do not indeed find, that the ancient commentators on the Gospels have\nsaid any thing to the difficulties, I have mentioned. They seem to have\nlooked no further than to the obvious sense of this transaction, and to\nhave acquiesced in the opinion of its being intended to evidence our\nLord\u2019s zeal for the honour of God\u2019s house, without any further view or\npurpose whatsoever. They found it related as a matter of fact; and they\npiously admitted the authority of Jesus to controul the civil usages\nand rights of the Jews, by virtue of his transcendant power and divine\ncharacter.\n\nBut the moderns have been aware of the objections, which lie against this\ninterpretation. Our learned Selden, in particular, has an entire chapter,\nin his book _De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Hebr\u00e6orum_, on\nthis subject[303]. His notion is, That Jesus exerted this act of power,\nin virtue of what the Jews called THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF ZEALOTS[304];\nby which they meant, not a general zeal or indignation (such as is before\nspoken of) against what they conceived to be derogatory to the honour\nof their religion; but a _right_, strictly so called, derived to them\nfrom the civil institutions and approved usages of their country, of\ninterfering, in some extraordinary cases, to repel a manifest insult on\ntheir law, by private force, without waiting for the slow process of a\njudicial determination.\n\nThe principal, or rather sole foundation, on which this notion is\nerected, is the case of _Phinehas_, related in the book of NUMBERS[305]:\nwhich the Jews afterwards construed into a _law_, or embraced at least\nas a _traditionary_ rule of conduct, derived to them, as they supposed,\nfrom the times of Moses. But this case will by no means bear the\nconstruction, which has been made of it. For,\n\n1. It was a single and very _particular_ case, without any intimation\nfrom the historian, that it was afterwards to be drawn into precedent.\n\n2. It may seem to have been, if not commanded, yet in some measure\nauthorized, or it was at least, by an express revelation, afterwards\njustified. For the matter is thus related. Upon the defection of the\nIsraelites at Shittim into idolatry, in consequence of their prophane, as\nwell as impure commerce with _the daughters of Moab_, God sent a plague\namong them, and besides commanded Moses to put to death all those who had\nbeen guilty of such abominations. Moses obeyed, and _said unto the judges\nof Israel, slay ye every one his men, that were joined unto Baal-Peor_.\n\nThis command was issued very properly to the _Judges_: but a _private_\nman, _Phinehas, the son of Eleazer, the son of Aaron the priest_,\ninstigated by his zeal, and presuming perhaps on his relationship to the\nhigh priest (from whose family, a more than ordinary zeal in such a case\nmight be expected) did, under these circumstances, take upon himself to\nexecute that command on two persons, surprized in the very act, for which\nthe penalty had been denounced, in the presence of all the people. Now,\nthough this proceeding was irregular in itself, yet the notoriety of the\nfact, the most atrocious that could be, and the most daring insult on the\ndivine authority, seemed almost to supersede the necessity of a legal\nprocess. The consequence was, that God himself was pleased to accept and\nreward the deed, because the author of it, on such a provocation, and at\nsuch a time, _was zealous for his God, and had made an atonement for the\nchildren of Israel_.\n\nBut to argue from a single instance, so circumstanced, that the same\nzeal was allowable in other cases, in which no such countenance had\nbeen given, and no such necessity or provocation could be pretended,\nis evidently so unreasonable, that no stress ought to be laid on this\nargument. The Jews, indeed, in succeeding times, might fancy a general\nrule to have been implied in this single instance; and we know from their\nhistory, to what enormous excesses this their easy belief, concurring\nwith a natural violence of temper, afterwards transported them, during\nthe last calamities of this devoted people[306]: but our Lord was\nvery unlikely to give a countenance to their traditions, or to add the\nsanction of his authority to a principle, so weakly founded, and so\nliable to the worst abuse.\n\n3. This _traffic of the merchants_, in the court of the Gentiles, how\nunfit soever it might be, depended on the same authority, as this\npretended _right itself of the zealots_; that is, on the allowed usage\nand constant discipline of their country. No express precept of the law\ncould be alledged for either. So that this _right_ could not be exerted\nbut at the expence of _another_, equally well founded.\n\n4. Mr. Selden himself appears to have had some distrust of his own\nhypothesis, by the care he takes to interweave, in his discourse, a\ncharge of _fraud_ on the merchants, together with their _prophanation_\nof the temple. But the learned writer forgets, that ZELOTISM (if I\nmay have leave to use a new term) respected _religion_ only, and not\nprivate morals. For even _the act of zeal_, performed by Phinehas (from\nwhich, only, the very idea of this _Jewish right_, if it were one, was\nderived) had, for its object, not the _fornication_ simply, but the\n_idolatry_, of the criminals: it was a sacrifice, not to the honour of\n_virtue_, as such, but to the _honour of God_. And, indeed, nothing but\nthe singular structure of the Jewish polity, in which the honour of God\nwas so extraordinarily considered, could give any the least colour to the\n_fiction_ of such a right.\n\n5. _Lastly_, whatever degree of credit this principle of _zelotism_ might\nhave acquired among the Jews, it was very unlikely, perhaps we may say,\nimpossible, that Jesus should act upon it. When the Disciples, _James_\nand _John_, on a certain occasion, were instigated by this _zeal_ to\ncall for fire from Heaven on the heads of some persons, who had offered\nan insult to their master, Jesus himself rebuked them in these terms\u2014_Ye\nknow not what spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy\nmen\u2019s lives, but to save them_ [Luke ix. 55.]\u2014To _burn with fire_, is\nindeed something more than, _to scourge_: but, though the vengeance be\nnot equal, in these two instances, the _spirit_ is the same from which\nit is derived, and by which it is justified: and this _spirit_, we are\nexpressly told, is not that by which Jesus chose to conduct himself. It\nwas to no purpose to alledge the case of a Phinehas, or even an Elias:\nthese were no precedents for HIM, who _came not to destroy men\u2019s lives,\nbut to save them_.\n\nI conclude then, upon the whole, that Jesus did not perform this act\nof driving the merchants out of the temple, in the Jewish character of\nZEALOT; in what _other_ character he might possibly perform it, I shall\nnow inquire.\n\nThe ingenious conjecture of Mr. Selden, already considered, was\napparently taken up by him to avoid the difficulties which he found\nin accounting for this act of zeal in our Lord, from his _prophetic_\ncharacter only. These difficulties, he saw very distinctly, and has\nexplained with much force.\n\n\u201cThough the Saviour of the world, says he, was undoubtedly both God\nand King, and, by his absolute dominion, not over the Jews only, but\nthe whole race of mankind, must be supposed to have had a right of\ndoing whatever he saw fit to do; yet since we know, that he constantly\nsubmitted himself in all things to the established forms of civil\njustice, whether of Jewish, or Roman institution; and, as being desirous\nto exhibit in his own person a most absolute example of obedience to\nthe course of human authority, was careful always to abstain from every\nthing, that might be thought a violation of it in any private man; since,\nbesides, we know, that, considering the peculiar envy, to which his life\nwas exposed, he could not possibly have gratified his enemies more, than\nby putting it in their power to bring a criminal charge against him:\nit must, on all these accounts, be thought reasonable to suppose, that\nour Lord would not have ventured on so extraordinary an act, as that of\ndriving the merchants out of the temple, unless it had been such, as,\neven in the opinion of those who were most prejudiced against him, he\nmight lawfully and regularly perform[307].\u201d\n\nAll this, the reader sees, is prudently, piously, and ably said, by\nthis very learned writer; and I readily subscribe to every word of it.\nWe only differ in our conclusion from these premises. Mr. Selden holds,\nthat what Jesus did on this occasion, _cannot_ be reconciled to the idea\nof his PROPHETIC CHARACTER, as sustained by him in the course of his\nministry: I, on the contrary, conceive, that it very well _may_. But then\nI consider that _character_, as exercised by our Lord, at this time, in\n_another manner_, and to _other ends_, than the learned writer supposed.\n\nIn a word, I see Jesus in the light, not of a ZEALOT, but of a PROPHET\nonly, in this whole transaction. I see him acting, not on precarious\nprinciples and rabbinical traditions, but on the sure basis of scripture;\nand regulating his conduct by the known ideas of his office, such as had\nat all times been entertained of it, and were even now familiar to the\nJews in the times in which he lived.\n\nTo make way for what I have further to advance on this subject, it will,\nthen, be necessary to consider, _first_, the PRACTICES AND USAGES of\nthe Jewish prophets, I mean the _manner_, in which that high office was\nsometimes discharged and exercised by them, even to the very times in\nquestion: and, _secondly_, to consider, the true scope and meaning of the\nPROPHECY itself, to which Jesus appeals, and on which he justifies this\nobnoxious part of his conduct.\n\n1. It is impossible for those, who have read the scriptures of the Old\nTestament, not to observe, how much they abound in figures and material\nimages. Nay, the prophets are frequently represented as instructing\nthose, to whom they are sent, not in figurative expression only, but in\nthe way of action and by sensible signs. And this mode of information has\nbeen shewn by learned men[308] to arise from the very nature of language,\nin its rude and imperfect state; being indeed an apt and necessary\nexpedient to supply the defects of speech, under that circumstance. It\nhas further been made appear, from the history of mankind, that this\npractice universally prevailed in all barbarous nations, as well as in\nJud\u00e6a; nay, that it every where _continued_ to prevail, as an ornamental\nmethod of communication, long after the necessity was over, which had\ngiven birth to it; especially among the inhabitants of the East, to whose\nnatural vivacity it was so well suited. Hence, the Jewish prophets, it\nis said, but conformed to the established practice of their own times,\nwhen they adopted this use of representative action: as, when one Prophet\n_pushed with horns of iron_, to denote the overthrow of the Syrians[309];\nand another, _broke a potter\u2019s vessel to pieces_, to express the\nshattered fortune of the Jews[310]; with innumerable other instances of\nthe like nature.\n\nThis the prophet Hosea calls, using _similitudes by the_ HAND _of the\nprophets_[311]; and the effect of it was, to impress the proposed\ninformation on the minds of men with more force (being addressed to their\neyes and senses) than could have been done by a mere verbal explication.\n\nThis mode of teaching by signs, then, let it be remembered, was familiar\nto the Jewish nation, and prevailed even in the days of Jesus; as is\nclear from John the Baptist\u2019s _wearing a garment of camel\u2019s hair, and\neating locusts and wild honey_[312]; to signify the mortification and\nrepentance, which he was commissioned to preach\u2014from Christ\u2019s _riding\ninto Jerusalem_[313]; to signify the assumption of his regal office\u2014and\nfrom his directing his disciples to _shake of the dust of their\nfeet[314], as a testimony against them_, who would not receive his Gospel.\n\nAnd we find that, sometimes, even a miracle was wrought to furnish a\nconvenient _sign_\u2014As when Simon\u2019s _draught of fishes_[315], was made\nto denote the success he should have in his ministry; according to the\ninterpretation of Christ himself, who said to him, _Henceforth thou shalt\ncatch men_\u2014As, again, when Jesus _curst the barren fig-tree_[316], to\nsignify the unfruitfulness and rejection of the Jewish nation\u2014And, as\nwhen he permitted _the unclean spirits to enter into a herd of swine_,\nwhich, thereupon, _ran violently down a steep place and perished in the\nwaters_[317]: an exertion of his miraculous power, which, among other\npurposes, might be intended to express, in the way of _representation_,\nthe tyranny of evil spirits, and their attendants, evil habits, over\nsensual and voluptuous men (of whom _swine_ are the acknowledged\nemblems), and the consequent _perdition in which they drown them_. Nay,\nthe very parables of our Lord, are but this mode of information, by\nmaterial signs, once removed.\n\nIt may, further, be observed, that the two Christian Sacraments\nthemselves are founded on this principle: and so prevalent was the use of\nconveying information in this form, that even the Roman Governor, when\nhe condemned Jesus, _took water and washed his hands[318] before the\nmultitude_, to signify to them, that he was innocent of that horrid crime.\n\nFrom all this we may certainly conclude, that it was very customary\nin our Saviour\u2019s time for men to express themselves by outward and\nvisible signs: that this mode of expression was especially of ancient\nand approved use among the Prophets, when they would inforce some high\nand important topic of instruction: and that, not impossibly therefore,\nthe famous transaction in the temple may be only an information of this\nnature.\n\nIf then we would know, what that _information_ was, or, in other words,\nwhat was the peculiar _object_ of it, it will be proper, in the next\nplace,\n\n2. To turn to the PROPHECY, to which Jesus appeals, and to consider the\ntrue scope and purpose of it.\n\nThe prophecies of Isaiah, it is well known, are chiefly taken up in\npredicting the future glories of Christ\u2019s kingdom, of which _the call\nof the Gentiles_ makes a conspicuous and shining part. This great event\nis foretold in a vast variety of places; and in different forms of\nexpression, one while, plain and direct, at other times, figurative\nand obscure. The Messiah is spoken of as _bringing forth judgement to\nthe Gentiles_; and more clearly still, as _being given for a light to\nthe Gentiles_[319]. In other places, the expression is \u00e6nigmatical;\nas where the Heathen are mentioned as _prisoners_, who shall be set\nat liberty[320]\u2014as _strangers_, who should build up the walls of\nJerusalem[321]\u2014_as blind people that have eyes, and deaf that have\nears_[322]\u2014and under a multitude of other images.\n\nFull of these ideas, the Prophet begins the fifty-sixth chapter with the\nfollowing triumphant exhortation\u2014_Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment,\nand do justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to\nbe revealed_; the very language, almost, in which the Baptist afterwards\nannounced our Saviour to the Jews: whence it may appear, of _what_\nsalvation the Prophet is here speaking. But to _whom_ is this salvation\npromised? Why, in general, to those _who keep the Sabbath from polluting\nit_, ver. 2; that is, in the prophetic style, to those who should embrace\nthe Christian faith: for the _Sabbath_ being the sign or token of God\u2019s\ncovenant with the Jews, hence the prophets transfer this idea to the\nChristian Covenant; and, by _keeping the Sabbath_, they express the\nobservance of that future covenant, to which mankind should be admitted\nunder the ministry of Jesus.\n\nBut, perhaps, the Jews _only_ were to be admitted to this new covenant\nof salvation. The prophet expressly asserts the contrary: for not only\nthe Jews of the captivity (to whom we are to suppose the course of the\nprophecy to be immediately directed) are concerned in this salvation,\nbut THE SONS OF THE STRANGER, that is, the Gentiles (whom the Jews\nalways considered under the idea of _Strangers_, just as the Greeks did\nthe rest of the world, under that of _Barbarians_)\u2014_Even them_ (says\nthe Prophet, speaking in the person of God) _will I bring to my holy\nmountain_, ver. 7, and make them joyful _in my house of prayer: their\nburnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar_.\nThe language is still _Jewish_, according to the prophetic style, which\ndescribes the Christian dispensation under Jewish ideas: but by _holy\nmountain_ is meant the Church of Christ; and by _Sacrifices_, the\nspiritual services of that new \u0153conomy. And, to make this purpose of\nhis prophecy the clearer, he even departs, in one instance, from his\n_legal_ manner of expression, in saying, _I will make them joyful in my_\nHOUSE OF PRAYER; which is a spiritual and Christian idea; the Jewish\ntemple being properly a _house of sacrifice_, and not of _prayer_; for\nwhich last service there is no express precept in the law. And then\nfollows the prophecy, quoted by Jesus, as explanatory of what he was then\ndoing\u2014_for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people_.\nThe prophet, as solicitous to be understood, repeats and marks out this\ndistinction: I spoke of it, says he, as my house of prayer, _For my house\nshall_ [in those latter days] _be called_ [that is, shall _be_] a _house\nof prayer_, and that too, _for all people_; that is, not for the Jews\nonly, but for _all the Gentiles_. And, as if all this were not still\nclear enough, he adds\u2014_The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of\nIsrael_, the Jews dispersed in the captivity, _saith, Yet I will gather_\nOTHERS _to him, besides those that are gathered him_, ver. 8. that is,\nthe Gentiles.\n\nThis famous text, then, is clearly a prediction of the call of the\nGentiles into the Church of Christ, a prediction of that great event\nwhich should take place under the new dispensation, when the Jewish\nenclosure was to be laid open, and all men indifferently, the Gentiles,\nas well as the Jews, were to be admitted into the Christian covenant.\n\nIt is true, our English version of this text, quoted by our Lord, very\nmuch obscures, or rather perverts, its sense. It stands thus in the\nGospel of St. Mark\u2014_My house shall be called of all nations the house of\nprayer_, xi. 17. Whence it appears, that our translators considered this\ntext, as describing only the _destination_ of the Jewish temple, and not\nas predicting the _genius_ of the Christian religion. But the scope of\nthe prophecy, as above explained, and the Greek text itself, clearly\nshews that it ought to have been rendered thus\u2014_My house shall be called\na house of prayer for all the Gentiles_: \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThus much being premised, both _of the prophetic manner of teaching by\nsigns_, and _of the true meaning of this prophecy_, let us see now what\nlight these considerations afford to our present subject.\n\nJesus enters into that court of the temple, which was called _the court\nof the Gentiles_; who had leave to worship the God of Israel there, but\nwere permitted to advance no further. This _court_, he finds polluted\nby the sale of beasts, and the traffic of merchants; the Jews, in their\nsovereign contempt of these poor heathen, not only excluding them from\ntheir own place of worship, but debasing them still farther by the\nallowance of this sordid society to mix with them. What is the conduct of\nour Lord, on this occasion! Why, agreeably to his prophetic character, he\ndeclares himself sent to break through all these exclusive privileges and\ndistinctions; to accomplish that great mystery, which the old prophets\nhad so much and so triumphantly spoken of, as reserved to be revealed\nby him; and to admit the Heathen to an equal participation of the\nblessings, which the Gospel-covenant was to dispense, with the Jewish\npeople.\n\nBut, in what manner does he declare this purpose? Why, he _makes a\nscourge of small cords_, and, by the representative action of driving\nthis prophane company out of the temple, shews that he is come to break\ndown that partition-wall, which separated the Gentile and the Jewish\nworshippers, to vindicate the despised Heathen from the insults offered\nto them, and to lay open the means of salvation to all people. _He began\nto cast out them that sold therein and them that bought, saying to them,\nIt is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the\nGentiles._ The action, we see, is used as _expressive_ of his design; and\nhis _design_ is clearly ascertained, by applying to himself the express\nwords of Isaiah. The whole is, then, _a prophetic information, by way of\naction_, of the genius of Christianity, which was to extend its benefits\neven to the Gentiles.\n\nI have before acknowledged, that a _secondary_ purpose of this\ntransaction might be, to give the Jews to understand, how culpable they\nhad been in permitting even a lawful traffic to be carried on in any\npart of their temple. For it was usual with Jesus to accomplish several\nends by the same act, and even to lay the greatest apparent stress on\nthat end, which was not first in his intention: of which some examples\nmay hereafter be given. But the primary design of _this_ act (and but for\nthe sake of which it would not have been undertaken) I suppose, was, to\npoint out the diffusive nature and influence of his spiritual kingdom.\n\nIt may be said, perhaps, that, if such was the intention of Jesus, it\nhad been more properly and significantly expressed by a different act, I\nmean, by that _of bringing the Heathen into the temple_, rather than _of\ndriving the merchants out of it_. But we are to reflect, that, as the\nHeathen were already permitted to come into this part of the temple (and\nit would have given, at this time, too great a shock to the prejudices\nof the Jews, to have carried them into any other), that act would have\nconveyed no new information; it being on all hands agreed that the\ndevout Heathen might worship there. The business was, to shew that their\nreligious privileges were, hereafter, to be the same with those of the\nJews; and that no more contempt was to be countenanced, towards the one,\nthan the other. All distinctions were to cease; and this information\nwas, therefore, most fitly conveyed by an act, which expressed the same\nregard for the court of the Gentiles, as for the court of the Jews: that\nis, the honour of each is equally asserted, and no prophanation allowed\nof either.\n\nIn further confirmation of the sense, here given to this transaction, it\nmay be observed, that the relation of it is joined, or rather interwoven\nwith that other of his _cursing the barren fig-tree_: which was plainly\nan emblem, and so is _confessed_ to be, of _the rejection of the Jews_;\njust as that we have been considering is _presumed_ to be, of _the\ncall of the Gentiles_: these two things being closely connected in the\norder of God\u2019s dispensations. Whence St. Paul speaks of the one, as the\nconsequence of the other; of _the fall of the Jews_, as _the riches\nof the world_; and of _the loss of the Jews_, as _the riches of the\nGentiles_[323]. Now, if we turn to St. Mark, we there find[324], that the\n_fig-tree is cursed_, as Jesus is coming from Bethany to Jerusalem\u2014that,\nwhen he came to Jerusalem, he went into the temple, and _drove out\nthe money-changers_, &c.\u2014and that the next morning, when he and his\ndisciples were returning the same way, _as they passed by, they saw the\nfig tree dried up from the roots_[325].\n\nIf then it be allowed, that Christ meant, by the _sign_ of the blasted\n_fig-tree_ (the story of which is so remarkably incorporated with that\nother of purging the temple), to express and predict _the rejection of\nthe Jews_, how natural is it to suppose that, in purging the temple,\nhe meant to express and predict, by another sign, _the vocation of the\nGentiles_! Or, if there be still any doubt in the case, Christ\u2019s own\nparable of the _Vineyard_ (which follows close in the history[326]) will\neffectually remove it. For the application of this parable is made by\nChrist himself to BOTH these subjects[327]\u2014_What shall the Lord of the\nVineyard do?\u2014He shall come and destroy_ THOSE _husbandmen, and shall give\nthe Vineyard to_ OTHERS\u2014That is, He shall REJECT THE JEWS, and ADMIT\nTHE GENTILES: an interpretation, so clear and certain that the Jews\nthemselves could not avoid seeing it; _for they perceived that he had\nspoken this parable against them_.\n\nBut I think it appears, from the conduct of the ruling Jews, on occasion\nof what had passed in the temple, that it was well understood for _what\ngeneral purpose_, and under _what character_, Jesus had exhibited\nthat extraordinary scene. For they presently come to him, and say,\n_By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this\nauthority[328]?_ That this question relates to _what things_ he had done\nin the temple, when he applied the scourge to the merchants, the context\nclearly shews; and is indeed beyond all doubt, since we find the same\nquestion put to him, and almost in the same words, when he had performed\nthis act before, at the first Passover: _Then answered the Jews, and\nsaid unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these\nthings[329]?_\n\nNow, if the Jews had seen this transaction in the light of an _act\nof authority_ or of _violence_ against the persons of the merchants,\nit neither agreed with their _character_, nor indeed with their\n_principles_, to put this question. _The chief priests and elders of\nthe people_ are the persons who interrogate Jesus in this manner[330]:\nand would they, who constantly _laid wait for him, that they might\naccuse him_[331], let slip so fair an opportunity of citing him before\nthe magistrate, as a disturber of the public peace, and a violater of\ntheir civil rights and customs? Instead of taking this obvious advantage\nagainst him, they at once drop all the malice of their character, and\nonly ask him, in the way of civil and almost friendly expostulation, _By\nwhat authority he did these things_. It is certain, they never had so\nspecious a pretence, as this affair administered to them, of bringing a\npublic accusation against him. Yet it seems never once to have entered\ninto their thoughts. Nor can it be said, that they stood in awe of the\n_people_ (as they sometimes did, when they were enough disposed to lay\nhands on him); for the people, in this case, when so free an attack was\nmade on their privileges, as well as prejudices, would naturally be on\ntheir side.\n\nBut neither would their _Principles_ suffer them to put this question.\nJesus had, as they conceived, committed a flagrant act of injustice,\nin assaulting the persons of men, who were under the protection of the\nstate: and they call upon him only for _a sign, since he did these\nthings_. Is it credible that men, so attached, as they were, to their own\nlaws and customs, should demand, or accept a _sign_, in such a juncture?\nCould all Paul\u2019s miracles justify him, in their opinion, for _not walking\nafter their customs_[332]? Or, would a _sign_ from heaven, of how\ntranscendant a nature soever, have absolved Jesus in their apprehension,\nfrom a crime, so palpably proved upon him? They would certainly have\nsaid, as they did say on another occasion, _We have a Law_, which forbids\nall offences of this sort; and _by that Law_, he ought to be tried and\njudged.\n\nThus, I think, the matter stands, if the Jews had regarded Jesus, in the\nlight of a CRIMINAL. On the other hand, if they saw him only in the light\nof a PROPHET, of one who _assumed_ that character, and had now, in the\nway of his office, employed this act to convey some important information\nto them, their conduct was very natural in demanding some proof of his\nbeing what he pretended to be: and that proof, could be no other than a\n_sign_, or miracle; which was the proper evidence of his being a person\nsent from God. This evidence, indeed, of his prophetic mission had\nalready been given to the Jews, in the _signs_, or miracles, which he had\nwrought among them. But they wanted more than a general conviction of his\nbeing invested with the prophetic character. They were anxious to know by\nwhat _authority_ he did THESE THINGS; in other words, what _Commission_\nhe had, and how it came to be in his commission, to put the Jews and\nGentiles on a level. A prophet he might be; but not a prophet, authorized\nto declare himself so roundly, as by this expressive act he had done,\nagainst the peculiar people of God, and in favour of the despised\nheathen. Of his commission to publish such a doctrine, as this, it was no\nordinary _sign_ that would satisfy them. They pressed him, therefore, for\nsome _sign_, purposely and expressly wrought for this end; some _sign_,\nso extraordinary in itself, and so peculiarly adapted to the nature of\nthe case, as to furnish an immediate and decisive answer to their demand,\n_Who gave thee_ THIS _authority_?\n\nThis question our blessed Lord thought fit to elude (for reasons, which\nwill, in part, appear in the progress of this discourse) at both the\ntimes, when it was proposed to him: once, by referring them to the\nauthority of John the Baptist: and, again, by referring them (but\nin \u00e6nigmatic terms) to his own resurrection. Yet even _the Baptist_\nwould have let them into some part of the secret, which they desired\nto penetrate; for, knowing the master-prejudice of his countrymen,\nhe addressed them in these remarkable words\u2014_Think not to say within\nyourselves, We have Abraham for our Father: for I say unto you, God is\nable even of_ THESE STONES[333] _to raise up children unto Abraham_[334].\nAnd then, for the miracle of his own _resurrection_, that would not only\nbe the fullest proof of his prophetic mission, but would, at the same\ntime, be the completion of what he was now signifying to them, by this\nprophetic act: for the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah, into which all\nthe nations were to be admitted, was to take place from that event.\n_Destroy_, says he, _this temple_, [meaning, as we are told, _the temple\nof his body_] _and in three days I will build it up_[335]. So that,\nalthough Jesus refused to gratify his questioners by working instantly\nbefore them the _sign_, which they demanded: yet he refers them to _such_\na sign, which would be wrought in due time, and to the very purpose\nof their inquiry; that is, it would be a sign, which should, _both_,\ndemonstrate his prophetic commission to declare, by this _significant\nact_, the favour which God intended to confer on the Gentiles, and\nshould, _also_, realize his declaration, or set before them _the thing\nsignified_. Such is the force of that divine answer\u2014_Destroy this temple,\nand in three days I will build it up_.\n\nWhere, by the way, we may, further, observe, that the _symbolic\nlanguage_, in which he here predicts his resurrection, not being at all\napprehended by the Jews, was afterwards made the foundation of a charge\nagainst him, as if he had entertained the criminal _design_ of destroying\nthe temple of Jerusalem[336]. How much more would his enemies have laid\nhold on this symbolic _act_, which he performed in the temple, in order\nto found a charge of sedition against him, if they had not conceived of\nhim as acting in the character of a _prophet_ only, and so had clearly\ncomprehended, at least, the _general_ scope and meaning of that act!\n\nThat it was taken in this light, I mean, of a _prophetic action_, by\nthe very persons on whom this seeming outrage was committed, may be\nreasonably presumed, since they make no resistance to it, nor complain\nof any injury, done them by it: a conduct, very strange and unlikely, if\nthe parties concerned had received any considerable damage: or if they\nconceived that any _intended_ violence had been offered to them. It is\nplain, they considered the whole transaction, as a piece of _scenery_, or\nrepresentation only; under the cover of which, Christ proposed, in the\nmanner of the Eastern sages, and especially of the Jewish prophets, to\nconvey some momentous information to them, and to impress it with much\nforce and energy on their minds.\n\nNor can it be concluded from the narration of the Evangelists, that any\nthing more was intended by their master. They relate this adventure,\nsimply as _a matter of fact_; and it could not well be related otherwise,\nfor the _information_ was given in the _fact_. They intermix, indeed, no\nexplanation; because they probably saw not, any more than the generality\nof the by-standers, the _specific_ information, it was meant to convey.\nThey only saw, in general, that _some_ information was the end and\npurpose of the act. The ruling Jews, who interrogated Jesus concerning\nthis act, I have no doubt, saw or suspected, at least, the real drift\nof it. But, as Jesus could not be brought to explain himself by any\ndirect answer, they were left to their own conclusions about it: and were\ncontent, we may suppose, to keep these conclusions to themselves: the\nrather, as the turn, which our Lord thought fit to give to this act, as\nif it respected only the honour of God\u2019s house, put it out of their power\nto charge that other meaning, decisively, upon him.\n\nWe may further observe, that the _history_ of this fact is not to be\nconstrued with the utmost rigour. Some of the evangelists express\nthemselves in such terms, as, in the strict sense of them, imply, that\nJesus actually drove all the beasts and traffickers out of the temple.\nBut we need only suppose that he applied himself to this action, _as\nif_ his purpose had been actually to drive them all out: and that he\ncontinued to employ himself in it in such sort, and for so long a time,\nas that the persons present might take notice of what he did, and so be\nable (I do not say immediately, but in due season) to interpret this\n_sign_, together with Isaiah\u2019s _prophecy_, in the manner he intended. I\nsay, _we need only suppose this_: because if no more was done by Jesus,\nthe Evangelists, in their concise and simple way of narration would\nnaturally express themselves, as they have done, their accounts of this\nfact; and I believe, if we consider the accounts we have of many other\ninformations _by action_, recorded in the old Scriptures, we shall\nfind it necessary to understand them with some such restrictions and\nqualifications.\n\nIf, after all, it be thought, that some _violence_ was offered to the\nmerchants, and that some _inconvenience_ was suffered by them, in\nconsequence of it; I suppose they deserved this punishment for their\npollution of the temple; and I admit that the prophetic character of\nJesus authorized him, in the course of his ministry, to inflict it; just\nas, without doubt, it authorized him to destroy the barren _fig-tree_,\nwhen it served his purpose to discharge a part of his office by making\nuse of that _emblem_, though it might be with some loss to the proprietor\nof it. The case was the same here, when he drove the traffickers from\ntheir station. But there is a wide difference between supposing the\n_violence_, offered to them, to be the _direct and proper purpose_ of the\nact, and the _incidental effect_ of it. And the silence of the merchants\nthemselves, under this violence, sufficiently shews, as I observed, that\nthey _felt_ this difference.\n\nBut the main difficulty, perhaps, is still behind. For, it will be asked,\nWhy was this _mysterious_ method used by our Saviour at all, in conveying\nthe supposed momentous information, when he might have expressed his\nmeaning _directly_, in plain words?\n\n1. One reason, I suppose, might be, the inveterate and insurmountable\nprejudices of the Jewish converts to this part of the Messiah\u2019s\ncharacter. For, though the prophets had given frequent, and sometimes\nthe most clear, descriptions of it: yet, so possessed were they with the\nnotion of their _being_, and of their _continuing_ to be, even under the\ndispensation of their Messiah, a chosen and peculiar people, that they\nnever could hear (no, not the Apostles themselves, till enlightened by\nthe holy Spirit, and by a special revelation for that purpose; they could\nnever hear, I say) without the utmost indignation, _That God had opened\nthe door of faith to the Gentiles_[337]. This indirect information was\nthen in condescension to the weakness of his own disciples and followers.\n\nAnd of this tenderness to their infirmities we have a remarkable instance\nin the case of the _fig-tree_, so often mentioned; the drift of which\nwas unquestionably to denote the approaching _rejection of the Jews_, for\ntheir unfruitfulness under the means of grace, and their rejection of\nthe Messiah. But, the minds of the disciples being too infirm, at this\ntime, to bear the open communication of so mortifying a truth, Jesus\npurposely diverts them from the main purpose of that miracle (though\nit was wrought, and the _sign_ given, for their future information and\nrecollection) and turns their attention on another and very remote\ncircumstance, _the efficacy of faith_ to enable them to work this and\ngreater miracles[338]. But it was a _general_ rule with our Lord to\nconsult the infirmities of his disciples, and to communicate to them only\nso much of his purposes and councils, as they could bear; leaving the\nrest to be collected by them, in due time, from casual hints and obscure\npassages, when they should afterwards call them to mind, and be in a\ncondition, under the influence of the holy Spirit, to profit by them.\nThus, in John xvi. 12. _I have yet many things to say to you, but_ YE\nCANNOT BEAR THEM NOW: and then refers them to the spirit of truth, for\nfurther information.\n\nConnected with this tenderness for his disciples,\n\n2. A _further_ reason, without doubt, was a prudential regard to the\ngeneral _success_ of his ministry, with the rest of the Jews.\n\nFor that great event, the call of the Gentiles, was not to take place\nduring the life of Jesus; _who was sent only to the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Israel_[339]; that is, he was _personally_ to address himself\nonly to THEM; the conversion of the Heathen being to be effected, after\nhis ascension, by the ministry of his Apostles and followers. Hence, had\nour Saviour plainly unfolded this secret to the Jews, he would certainly\nhave indisposed them for paying any regard to his mission. And yet, so\nimportant a part of his character was not to be wholly concealed. It was\ntherefore signified in this covert way; and (being itself a prophecy of\nsomething yet to be deferred) in the mode, and with the usual obscurity,\nof a prophetic information.\n\nWhat I have just now observed of the caution with which our Lord revealed\nhis purpose of calling the Gentiles, explains the reason why St. John\u2019s\naccount of the _first_ transaction in the temple, differs so much from\nthat which the other Evangelists give of the _second_. Jesus had just\nentered on his prophetic office, when he used the _sign_ of purging\nthe temple, of which St. John speaks: he therefore leaves the Jews to\ntheir own interpretation of that sign, saying only, _Take these things\nhence; make not my Father\u2019s house an house of merchandize_; as though\na zeal for that house had been his sole inducement to make use of it:\nand accordingly the disciples, as I before observed, so understood\nhim. But, when he thought fit to employ this _significative action_ a\nsecond time, of which the other Evangelists only speak, his ministry\nwas then drawing to a conclusion. So that he is now less scrupulous of\ngiving offence, and does all but directly interpret the sign himself, by\nreferring his hearers to the prophecy of Isaiah, which was the proper\nkey to it\u2014_He taught them, saying, Is it not written, My house shall be\ncalled the house of prayer for all the nations_[340]? Still, there was\nsome obscurity, which he did not think fit altogether to remove: but he\nhad said enough to correct their former hasty conclusion. For we are\nnot told by those other Evangelists, as we are by St. John, that the\ndisciples considered what they had seen their Master do, as a pure act\nof _zeal_ for the honour of the temple: the prophecy, without doubt,\nsuggested something to their minds, which led them to apprehend a farther\nand higher purpose in that transaction.\n\n3. Lastly, we may suppose, that the information was given in this\n_symbolic way_, that, when men saw the event, they might be the more\nstrongly convinced of its being Christ\u2019s intention it should come to\npass, by calling to mind the sensible and striking manner, in which it\nhad been predicted by him.\n\nFor these, or other reasons, the method here employed by Christ to\nsignify his intended favour to the Gentiles, might be most proper. In the\nmean time, as I said, this intention was not wholly to be concealed: for\nthen the call of the Gentiles might be deemed an afterthought, and not to\nhave been originally in his commission. Accordingly, it is intimated very\nfrequently in our Lord\u2019s discourses to the Jews, and opened more clearly\non many occasions to his Apostles; and was, in truth, so much in his\nview, and so constantly present to him, that, as we now find, it was one\nof the _first_, and _last_ things he did, to go into the temple, and, by\nan expressive sign, to declare his gracious purpose towards the Heathen.\n\nWe may, further, observe (so intent was The Divine Providence on\ngradually unveiling _the glory of this mystery_[341], as St. Paul terms\nit) that the moment our blessed Lord expired on the cross, _the veil of\nthe temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom_: a _sign_, to\nsome purpose, of that great event which Jesus had foretold, and which God\nhimself held forth to the astonished Jews, as the clearest emblem of his\npurposed favour to the Gentiles; when the Sanctuary itself, as well as\nthe outermost court of their temple, was thus laid open to the access,\nand vindicated to the use, of all nations.\n\n_Finally_, in due time, this purpose was clearly and explicitly made\nknown to Peter, in his famous vision: and thus it pleased God to\nreveal this adorable mystery, \u201cThe salvation of the Gentile world,\u201d\n(which, though not the _immediate_, was the most important end of\nChrist\u2019s commission) by every mode of communication, which he had ever\nemployed in his intercourse with mankind; by the _word of prophecy_\u2014by\n_similitudes_, _by the hand of Jesus_\u2014by an _extraordinary sign from\nheaven_\u2014and by _Vision_.\n\nAfter so minute a commentary on this famous act of _Christ\u2019s driving the\nbuyers and sellers out of the temple_, may I be permitted to conclude,\nthat it, now, stands clear of those difficulties, which have been usually\nfound it?\u2014It was no indecent start of zeal in our Lord: it was no violent\ninvasion of the rights of any: it was no act of civil authority, usurped\nby him: but a _prophetic information_, conveyed in a _prophetic form_,\nof an event, the most important to mankind, and to the accomplishment of\nhis own office and ministry. It was a calm, rational, inoffensive act;\nnot unworthy the person of our blessed Lord; or, rather, full of that\nwisdom, which adorned his character, and shone out in all his conduct and\nconversation.\n\n\nTHE END OF THE SEVENTH VOLUME.\n\nPrinted by J. Nichols and Son, Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[1] The substance of this Discourse was delivered in a Sermon at\nLincoln\u2019s-Inn, May 15, 1768.\n\n[2] Annal. xii. c. 54. Hist. v. c. 9.\n\n[3] Antiq. Jud. L. xx. c. 5.\n\n[4] Acts xvi. 30.\n\n[5] Heb. iii. 13.\n\n[6] Gen. ii. 17.\n\n[7] Ephes. iii. 11.\n\n[8] 1 Pet. i. 3.\n\n[9] Matth. xx. 28.\n\n[10] 1 Cor. vi. 20.\n\n[11] Heb. ix. 26.\n\n[12] 1 John ii. 2.\n\n[13] 1 Thess. v. 10.\n\n[14] 1 Pet. ii. 24.\n\n[15] 1 Pet. iii. 18.\n\n[16] Heb. ii. 9.\n\n[17] Eph. v. 2.\n\n[18] Rom. v. 9.\n\n[19] 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 1 Cor. vi. 20.\n\n[20] 1 Cor. xv. 22.\n\n[21] Rev. xiii. 8.\n\n[22] 1 Tim. iv. 10.\n\n[23] 1 Cor. xv. 41.\n\n[24] Matth. xxv. 46.\n\n[25] Phil. ii. 11.\n\n[26] John xv. 15.\n\n[27] John xv. 13.\n\n[28] Matth. xxiii. 8.\n\n[29] Rev. v. 9. 1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\n[30] Acts x. 42.\n\n[31] John iii. 18.\n\n[32] John xx. 28.\n\n[33] John v. 23.\n\n[34] Rom. vi. 22, 23.\n\n[35] 2 Tim. i. 9.\n\n[36] 1 Cor. xv. 22.\n\n[37] Gal. ii. 21.\n\n[38] Heb. xii. 14.\n\n[39] Heb. v. 9.\n\n[40] Eph. iv. 22.\n\n[41] Tit. iii. 5.\n\n[42] Tit. iii. 7.\n\n[43] Eph. iv. 24.\n\n[44] John xvi. 13.\n\n[45] John xvi. 13.\n\n[46] Thess. ii. 13.\n\n[47] Acts ix. 31.\n\n[48] Matth. x. 20.\n\n[49] Gal. iv. 6.\n\n[50] 2 Cor. iii. 17.\n\n[51] Eph. i. 14.\n\n[52] Ps. lxxxiv. 7.\n\n[53] Gen. vi. 3. Rom. viii. 16.\n\n[54] Phil. ii. 13.\n\n[55] 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n[56] Athanasian creed.\n\n[57] So the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd means in this place; as it likewise does in\nActs ii. 23. where the sense of it is clearly explained and defined\nby the words, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f61\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc7, which introduce it. The participle\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 has the same sense in 1 Pet. i. 20.\n\n[58] Ch. v. 1. v. 18. And vi. 16, 18.\n\n[59] Heb. v. 9.\n\n[60] See Sermon XXVI. in the preceding volume, p. 378.\n\n[61] 2 Cor. vi. 16. 1 Cor. iii. 16.\n\n[62] \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9. Rom. v. 5.\n\n[63] For which reason it is not necessary for me to enter into the\ncontroversy, that divides the critics, concerning the authentic reading\nof this part of the text.\n\n[64] 2 Pet. i. 21.\n\n[65] Matth. i. 18.\n\n[66] Matth. iii. 16.\n\n[67] Matth. iv. i.\n\n[68] Matth. xii. 28.\n\n[69] Rom. i. 4. 1 Pet. iii. 18.\n\n[70] Acts ii. 4.\n\n[71] 1 Cor. xii. 11.\n\n[72] 1 Cor. vi. 11. John xv. 26.\n\n[73] Heb. xii. 22.\n\n[74] 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, 12.\n\n[75] Heb. i. 6.\n\n[76] Luke ii. 13.\n\n[77] Matth. iv. 11.\n\n[78] Luke xxii. 43.\n\n[79] Matth. xxviii, 3. Luke xxiv. 4. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[80] Acts i. 10.\n\n[81] Heb. i. 3.\n\n[82] Milton.\n\n[83] Rom. xvi. 25.\n\n[84] 1 Tim. iv. 10.\n\n[85] Acts xi. 18. \u1f21\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[86] Acts v. 14.\n\n[87] Luke xvi. 16.\n\n[88] Matth. xi. 12.\n\n[89] Ps. xix. 4. Matth. xxiv. 14.\n\n[90] Acts xix. 20.\n\n[91] Acts ii. 24.\n\n[92] 1 Cor. xv. 28.\n\n[93] 1 Tim. iv. 6. \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[94] \u201cWhat this or that philosopher delivered, was but a saying of his.\nMankind might hearken to it, or reject it, as they pleased; or, as it\nsuited their interest, passions, principles, or humours. They were under\nno obligation; the opinion of this, or that philosopher, was of no\nauthority.\u201d LOCKE, V. II. p. 578. fol. Lond. 1759.\n\n[95] The Stoics. \u1f49 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2\u2014\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f54\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. See Casaub. ad Sat. 11.\nPersii.\n\n[96] Plato. Alcib. 11.\n\n[97] The Epicureans of old and modern times.\n\n[98]\n\n \u2014incoctum generoso pectus honesto.\n PERSIUS.\n\n[99] Luke xvii. 4.\n\n[100] See this argument urged by Mr. Locke, V. II. p. 574. fol. Lond.\n1759.\n\n[101] John iii. 19.\n\n[102] Ibid. 20, 21.\n\n[103] John iii. 18.\n\n[104] Ferte fortiter: hoc est, _quo Deum antecedatis_: Ille extra\npatientiam malorum est, vos supra patientiam. _Sen. de Prov._ c. vi.\n\n[105] _Cic. Nat. Deor._ iii. 36.\n\n[106] Lord Shaftesbury, and others.\n\n[107] Acts xvii. 31.\n\n[108] Heb. ii. 3.\n\n[109] Mark xvi. 20.\n\n[110] Job xxii. 2.\n\n[111] Hence the name of Theophrastus, or _the divine speaker_, given to\nthe favourite scholar and successor of Aristotle; And hence the stories\ntold of Plato, whose eloquence Quintilian so much admired, that he\nthought it more than human\u2014_Ut mihi, non hominis ingenio, sed quodam\nDelphico videatur oraculo instinctus_. Quintil. l. x. c. 1.\u2014Hence too,\nthe name of _Chrysostom_, given to the famous Greek Father.\n\n[112] Heb. i. 2.\n\n[113] Phil. ii. 7.\n\n[114] John v. 26.\n\n[115] 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n[116] Mark i. 22.\n\n[117] John iii. 11.\n\n[118] John xii. 50.\n\n[119] John vi. 40.\n\n[120] Rev. ii. 10.\n\n[121] John v. 26.\n\n[122] John viii. 28.\n\n[123] John xvi. 15.\n\n[124] John x. 30.\n\n[125] _Non imitabile fulmen._ Virg.\n\n[126] Luke ii. 47.\n\n[127] Luke xx. 26.\n\n[128] Luke xx. 40.\n\n[129] See LOCKE\u2019S _Works_, vol. II. fol. p. 545-7. Lond. 1759.\n\n[130] LOCKE\u2019S _Works_, vol. II. fol. p. 543. Lond. 1759.\n\n[131] Every one may observe a good many truths, which he receives at\nfirst from others, and readily assents to, as consonant to Reason, which\nhe would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond his strength, to have\ndiscovered himself. Native and original truth is not so easily wrought\nout of the mine, as we, who have it delivered, ready dug and fashioned\ninto our hands, are apt to imagine. And how often, &c. LOCKE\u2019S _Works_,\nVol. II. fol. p. 577 and 579. _Lond._ 1759.\n\n[132] Luke v. 22. vi. 8. xi. 17.\n\n[133] Luke vi. 11.\n\n[134] Luke ix. 47.\n\n[135] Luke xxii. 61.\n\n[136] Matthew xxvii. xiv. and xxiv.\n\n[137] John xviii. 4-6.\n\n[138] Luke vii. 40. ix. 47.\n\n[139] Prov. xxi. 1.\n\n[140] Luke xi. 27, 28.\n\n[141] See John ix. 39.\n\n[142] Matth. x. 26, 27.\n\n[143] See D. L. Vol. V. p. 339, &c. Lond. 1765.\n\n[144] D. L. Vol. V. p. 341. n.\n\n[145] See more on this subject in Dr. Warburton\u2019s Sermons, Vol. I. p. 325.\n\n[146] Luke xxiv. 45.\n\n[147] Luke xxiv. 27.\n\n[148] John xvi. 12. Mark iv. 33, 34.\n\n[149] John xi. 47.\n\n[150] Luke iv. 43.\n\n[151] Luke iv. 29.\n\n[152] Matt. x. 23.\n\n[153] Mark vi. 5.\n\n[154] Matth. vii. 6.\n\n[155] Matth. xxvi. 56.\n\n[156] St. Paul. 1 Cor. xv. 9.\n\n[157] St. Peter. Mark xiv. 71.\n\n[158] Luke xxii. 51.\n\n[159] Luke ix. 54.\n\n[160] Luke ix. 46.\n\n[161] See the Essais of _Montaigne_.\n\n[162] Pens\u00e9es de M. Pascal, c. xvi. \u00a7 3.\n\n[163] Acts xxii. 15. and xxvi. 22.\n\n[164] Matthew v. 3.\n\n[165] Compare, _Luke_ vii. 21, 22.\n\n[166] Matthew xv. 6.\n\n[167] Matt. xi. 25.\n\n[168] Luke xviii. 9.\n\n[169] \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _the mob_. John vii. 49.\n\n[170] Eph. ii. 12.\n\n[171] Matth. xxii. 15.\n\n[172] Matth. xii. 37.\n\n[173] Luke xix. 48.\n\n[174] John vii. 46.\n\n[175] Matth. vii. 28.\n\n[176] Matth. xii. 23.\n\n[177] Matth. ix. 33.\n\n[178] Matth. ix. 8.\n\n[179] St. James ii. 6, 7.\n\n[180] 1 Cor. i. 26.\n\n[181] \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u2014_vexati_.\n\n[182] \u1f10\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u2014_projecti_.\n\n[183] Matth. ix. 36.\n\n[184] Matth. xi. 28, 29.\n\n[185] 1 Cor. i. 27-9.\n\n[186] Isaiah lix. 8.\n\n[187] \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u2014John viii. 44.\n\n[188] Matth. v. 11, 12.\n\n[189] John xiii. 1.\n\n[190] Matth. x. 32, 3. and 38, 9. Luke xiv. 26. 1 John iii. 16.\n\n[191] John xvi. 2, 33.\n\n[192] Matth. vii. 12.\n\n[193] Luke xix. 41. John xi. 35.\n\n[194] \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7\u2014Col. i. 27.\n\n[195] \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[196] Rom. i. 21.\n\n[197] Tim. ii. 14 and 16.\n\n[198] Coloss. ii. 18.\n\n[199] 2 Tim. ii. 18.\n\n[200] Rom. xv. 13.\n\n[201] _Divine prescience_, _absolute decrees_, &c.\n\n[202] Bacon, Boyle, Locke, Newton.\n\n[203] Barrow, Clarke, Butler, Warburton, &c.\n\n[204] \u201cIt hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning,\nnot to content themselves with that measure of faith, which God and the\nScriptures have expressly afforded us: but out of a vain desire to know\nmore than is revealed, they have attempted to discuss things, of which we\ncan have no light, neither from reason nor revelation.\u201d J. HALES _Works_,\nVol. I. p. 125. _Glasg._ 1765.\n\n[205] Matth. xiii. 57.\n\n[206] John i. 46.\n\n[207] John vii. 52.\n\n[208] Acts iv. 13. See Whitby on the place.\n\n[209] John vii. 48.\n\n[210] Matth. ix. 11.\n\n[211] Matth. xv. 2.\n\n[212] Luke xxiv. 21.\n\n[213] Acts XIX.\n\n[214] Acts xvii.\n\n[215] Celsus, Porphyry, Julian.\n\n[216] In his famous book, _De Civitate Dei_.\n\n[217] Acts vi. 8.\n\n[218] John xii. 31.\n\n[219] Ephes. ii. 2.\n\n[220] 2 Cor. iv. 4.\n\n[221] James ii. 19.\n\n[222] Gen. iii. 14, 15.\n\n[223] Matth. xxv. 41.\n\n[224] Eph. ii. 2.\n\n[225] James iv. 7.\n\n[226] Matth. xvii. 21.\n\n[227] 1 Pet. v. 9.\n\n[228] John xii. 31.\n\n[229] Luke x. 18.\n\n[230] Job i. 12.\n\n[231] Matth. viii. 21.\n\n[232] Luke ix. 1. and x. 17.\n\n[233] Luke x. 18.\n\n[234] John xiii. 2.\n\n[235] \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 Matth. vi. 13.\n\n[236] 1 John iv. 4.\n\n[237] 1 Cor. x. 13.\n\n[238] Heb. ii. 14.\n\n[239] St. John iii. 8.\n\n[240] Rom. viii. 26.\n\n[241] Eph. xiv. 16.\n\n[242] Eph. xi. 2.\n\n[243] 1 Peter v. 8.\n\n[244] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 Eph. vi. 16.\n\n[245] Eccles. i. 17. and vii. 25.\n\n[246] SIGNA, TABULAS PICTAS, VASA C\u00c6LATA MIRARI\u2014reckoned, by the\nphilosophical historian, among the prognosticks of falling Rome.\n\n[247] Homo, res sacra. Seneca.\n\n[248] Neque enim ita generati \u00e0 natur\u00e2 sumus, ut ad ludum et jocum facti\nesse videamur; sed ad severitatem poti\u00f9s, et ad qu\u00e6dam studia graviora\natque majora.\n Cic. Off. L. i. 29.\n\n[249] Fastidio illis esse c\u0153pit vita, et ipse mundus; et subit illud\nrabidarum deliciarum, QUOUSQUE EADEM? Seneca, de tranq. anim. c. xi.\n\n[250] SAPIENS, SIBIQUE IMPERIOSUS\u2014are convertible terms in the moral poet.\n\n[251] Val. Max. IV. 3.\n\n[252] 1 Cor. ix. 25.\n\n[253] Ludo\u2014uti quidem licet; sed, sicut somno et quietibus c\u00e6teris, t\u00f9m\nc\u00f9m gravibus seriisque rebus satisfecerimus.\n Cic. Off. L. i. 29.\n\n[254] Exod. xxi. 24.\n\n[255] John xviii. 22, 23.\n\n[256] \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n[257] \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. See Grotius on the place.\n\n[258] Luke xii. 57.\n\n[259] Acts xvi. 37. xxv. 11.\n\n[260] Matth, v. 11. x. 23. xxvi. 52. From the two last passages we learn,\nthat the Jewish persecutors of Christ and his disciples were reserved for\na _special_ vengeance of Heaven; to be inflicted upon them in no long\ntime, and here predicted, as it seems, to let the disciples know why, in\nthis case, _resistance_ was forbidden, God having taken the matter into\nhis own hands.\n\n[261] The accomplishment of prophecy is given by Jesus himself as\none reason, why he forbad resistance to the Jews\u2014_how then shall the\nScriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be_, i. e. that the violence\nof the Jews should prevail? Matth. xxvi. 54.\n\n[262] Prov. xiii. 10.\n\n[263] Ch. viii. 38.\n\n[264] Mark xvi. 16.\n\n[265] St. John xii. 48.\n\n[266] John iv. 17.\n\n[267] John iii. 20.\n\n[268] John xi. 47. Acts iv. 16.\n\n[269] Mark vi. 3.\n\n[270] John vii. 41. i. 46.\n\n[271] John vii. 48.\n\n[272] John xii. 42.\n\n[273] John xii. 43.\n\n[274] 1 Cor. i. 23.\n\n[275] Luke viii. 13.\n\n[276] Mark x. 17, 23.\n\n[277] Jer. xvii. 9.\n\n[278] Public Baptism, disused.\n\n[279] The Lord\u2019s Supper, neglected.\n\n[280] Family Prayer, omitted.\n\n[281] 2 Tim. i. 8.\n\n[282] 1 John ii. 28.\n\n[283] See Bp. Warburton\u2019s DOCTRINE OF GRACE, Ch. ix.\n\n[284] 1 John iv. 2.\n\n[285] 2 Tim. ii. 18.\n\n[286] 1 Peter ii. 23.\n\n[287] Gen. xvii. 5.\n\n[288] Gen. xxxii. 28.\n\n[289] \u1f0d\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, or _death_ [see Grotius in loc.] is here personized: and,\nthe gates of cities, being anciently the places of counsel and judgment,\nas well as their chief defence and strength, hence the _gates of death_\nare the power and policy, which this person should employ to accomplish\nhis ends: which is, in other words, to say, that those ends, or\n_destruction_, should by no means be effected.\n\n[290] Acts ii. 14.\n\n[291] Acts x. and xv. 7.\n\n[292] An ancient apologist for Christianity seems to think, that, if\na sect of philosophy had been persecuted, as Christianity was, it\nwould presently have vanished out of the world. His words are\u2014\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3, \u03bf\u1f34\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7\n[Clemens Alexandr. Strom. L. vi. p. 827. Oxon. 1715.] Perhaps, the\nlearned father was mistaken. But a religion, founded on facts, not on\nopinions, and persecuted from the beginning, could not have supported\nitself, if those facts had been false. This is the case of Christianity.\nThe subsequent persecutions, when the truth of Christianity was admitted\non the credit of the first martyrs, might tend to advance this religion,\neven though it had been originally an imposture. The difference of the\ntwo cases is palpable. The Apostles shewed, by their sufferings, that\nthey _knew_ what they attested to be a true fact: Succeeding sufferers\nshewed, that they _believed_ it to be so.\n\n[293] 1 Peter i. 11.\n\n[294] Of Persecution. John xvi. 2.\n\nOf Heresies. Acts xx. 30. 1 Cor. x. 19.\n\nOf Mahomet\u2019s impiety, ix. 1-12. See Mede.\n\nOf the great Apostasy. 2 Thess. ii. &c.\n\nOf these, and other woes still to come. The Revelation, _passim_.\n\n[295] 1 Peter i. 25.\n\n[296] Matth. vii. 24, 25.\n\n[297] Acts xxvi. 26.\n\n[298] \u03a4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac. \u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03bd. Tom. II. p. 539. Ed. Bened.\n\n[299] \u201cThe Christian religion,\u201d says the finest of our English writers,\nwhom I need not therefore stay to name, \u201cmade its way through paganism\nwith an amazing progress and activity. Its victories were the victories\nof reason, unassisted by the force of human power, and as gentle as the\ntriumphs of light over darkness.\u201d\n\n[300] This effect of inquiry upon the Gentile religions was foreseen\nby men of sense\u2014_Non sunt ista_ [the traditionary tales of the heathen\nGods] _vulgo disputanda, ne susceptas public\u00e8 religiones disputatio talis\nextinguat_. Cic. Frag. Olivet. T. III. p. 586.\n\n[301] The substance of this Discourse was delivered in a Sermon at\nLincoln\u2019s-Inn, May 15, 1768.\n\n[302] Luke xii. 14.\n\n[303] L. iv. c. 5.\n\n[304] And to the same purpose, our excellent Archbishop Tillotson\u2014\u201cHis\n[Christ\u2019s] whipping of the buyers and sellers out of the temple, the only\naction of his life in which there appears any transport of anger, was no\nother than a BECOMING ZEAL for the honour of God\u2019s house, which he saw\nso notoriously prophaned; which zeal was WARRANTED, after the example of\nPhinehas, by the extraordinary occasion of it.\u201d Works, vol. iii. \u00a7 136.\np. 222.\n\n[305] _Numbers_, ch. xxv.\n\n[306] JOSEPHUS, _De Bello Judaico_, l. iv. c. 12.\n\n[307] Cert\u00e8, quamquam Servator humani generis et Deus et Rex erat,\nadeoque ita universi, nedum Jud\u00e6orum, dominus, ut quicquid ei placeret\nillud non licitum fuisse nefas sit putare; attamen, cum c\u00e6teras res\nomnes etiam et seipsum receptis atque stabilitis reipublic\u00e6 formulis\njudiciariis, qua Ebraic\u00e6 e\u00e6 essent, qua Roman\u00e6, permiserit, atque\nabsolutissimum justiti\u00e6 exemplar ab omni vi illicit\u00e2, veluti privatus,\nabstinere voluerit; quin et tanta ei imminuerit invidia, ut nihil magis\nincidentium in votis esset, quam ut cujuscunque delicti reum eum peragere\npotuissent; haud rationi sane ita consonum videtur existimare ejectionem\nillam factam seu vim illatam ab eo fuisse sine agnit\u00e2, etiam ab ipsis qui\ntam malign\u00e8 ei invidebant, lege seu more, quo in id genus homines templi\nsanctitatem ita polluentes incurrere licuerit, atque vi ejicere. L. iv.\nc. 5. p. 464.\n\n[308] Mr. Smith\u2019s Discourses, _Disc._ vi. ch. vi. Bishop Chandler,\n_Def. of Christianity_, ch. iii. \u00a7 1. and, very lately, the Bishop of\nGloucester, _Div. Leg._ b. iv. \u00a7 4.\n\n[309] 1 Kings xxii. 11.\n\n[310] Jeremiah xix.\n\n[311] Hosea xii. 10.\n\n[312] Matth. iii. 4.\n\n[313] Mark xi. 7.\n\n[314] Matth. x. 14.\n\n[315] Luke v. 6.\n\n[316] Mark xi. 14\n\n[317] Matthew viii. 32.\n\n[318] Matthew xxvii. 24.\n\n[319] Isaiah xlii. 1, 6.\n\n[320] Ibid. ver. 7.\n\n[321] Isaiah lx. 10.\n\n[322] Chap. xliii. 8.\n\n[323] Rom. xi. 12.\n\n[324] Mark xi. 14.\n\n[325] Mark xi. 15-20.\n\n[326] Mark xii. Luke xx. Matth. xxi.\n\n[327] Luke xx. 16-19.\n\n[328] Matthew xxi. 23.\n\n[329] John ii. 18.\n\n[330] Matthew xxi. 23.\n\n[331] Luke xi. 54.\n\n[332] Acts xxi. 21.\n\n[333] By _these stones_, the ancient interpreters universally understood\n_the Gentiles_. See Whitby _in loc._\n\n[334] Matt. iii. 9.\n\n[335] St. John, ch. ii. 19.\n\n[336] Matthew xxvi. 61.\n\n[337] Acts xiv. 27.\n\n[338] Mark xi. 21, 24.\n\n[339] Matthew xv. 24.\n\n[340] Mark xi. 17.\n\n[341] 1 Coloss. i. 27.\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nInconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.\n\nGreek words beginning with \u03d6 have had the character replaced with \u03c0.]","title":"The works of Richard Hurd, volume 7 (of 8)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":84624}