Transcriber’s Note:

This project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are not readable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a default font installed that can display utf-8 characters.

THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
VOL. VI.

Printed by J. Nichols and Son,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.

THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
IN EIGHT VOLUMES.
VOL. VI.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.
1811.

THEOLOGICAL WORKS.
VOL. II.

SERMONS
PREACHED AT
LINCOLN’S-INN,
BETWEEN THE YEARS 1765 AND 1776:
WITH
A LARGER DISCOURSE,
ON
CHRIST’S DRIVING THE MERCHANTS
OUT OF THE TEMPLE;
IN WHICH THE NATURE AND END OF THAT FAMOUS
TRANSACTION IS EXPLAINED.

SATIS ME VIXISSE ARBITRABOR, ET OFFICIUM HOMINIS IMPLESSE, SI LABOR MEUS ALIQUOS HOMINES, AB ERRORIBUS LIBERATOS, AD ITER CŒLESTE DIREXERIT. Lactantius.

TO THE
MASTERS OF THE BENCH
OF THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OF
LINCOLN’S INN,
THE FOLLOWING SERMONS,
IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR MANY AND
GREAT FAVOURS,
ARE BY THE AUTHOR
MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED.

CONTENTS
OF
THE SIXTH VOLUME.

SERMON I.
PREACHED FEBRUARY 3, 1771.

St. Matth. xiii. 51, 52.

Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

If there be any difficulty in these words, it will be removed by considering the manners of that time, in which Jesus lived, and the ideas of those persons, to whom he addressed himself.

The Israelites were a plain, frugal people; abundantly supplied with all things needful to the convenient support of life, but very sparingly with such as come under the notion of ornaments or superfluities. They drew their means of subsistence chiefly from pasturage, agriculture, and other rural occupations. Gold and Silver was scarce among the ancient Jews; and the less necessary to them, as they had little traffic among themselves, and still less with their pagan neighbours; the wisdom of their Law having purposely restrained, and, upon the matter, prohibited, all the gainful ways of commerce.

Now, to a people, thus circumstanced, unfurnished, in a good degree, with arts and manufactures, and but slenderly provided with the means of exchange for the commodities they produce; management, thrift, and what we call good husbandry, must have been a capital virtue. Householders were especially concerned to hoard up, and keep by them, in readiness, all such things as might be requisite either to cloath or feed their respective families. And therefore, as they were continually making fresh additions to their stock, so they carefully preserved what things they had, provided they were of a nature to be preserved, although time and use had impaired the grace, or diminished the value, of them. Thus, they had things new and old laid up in their store-house, or treasury (for these provisions were indeed their treasure), which, as the text says, they could bring forth, on any emergency that called for them.

And to this Jewish Householder, thus furnished and prepared for all occasions, our Lord compares the scribe, instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, in other words, the minister, or preacher of the Gospel. Every such scribe was to be suitably provided with what might be serviceable to those committed to his charge: And the Text delivers it, as a general inference from the example of Christ himself (who, from a variety of topics, some new, some old, had been instructing his disciples in this chapter), that WE, the teachers of his religion, should likewise have in store a variety of knowledge for the supply of his church, and that we should not be backward or sparing, as we see occasion, in the use of it. Therefore, says he, that is, for this end[1] that your respective charges may be well and perfectly instructed by you, as you have been by me, every scribe, which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

It is true, if this instruction of our Lord and Master had concerned only the preachers of the word, I might have found a fitter place and occasion for a discourse upon it. But the case is much otherwise; and it concerns all the faithful to understand what the duty of those is, who are intrusted to dispense the word of life, lest they take offence at the ministry, without cause, and so deprive themselves of the fruit which they might otherwise reap from it.

Let me therefore lay before you some plain considerations on the aphorism in the text; and submit it to yourselves how far they may deserve the notice of all Christians.

It would be ridiculous, no doubt, to torture a meer figure of speech; and to pursue a metaphor through all the minute applications, which an ordinary imagination might find or invent for it. But I shall not be suspected of trifling in this sort, when I only conclude, from the comparison of a Christian Scribe to the Jewish Householder;

I. That all the treasures of knowledge, which the minister of the Gospel may have laid up in his mind, are destined, not to the purposes of vanity, but to the use of his charge; for such must have been the intention of a reasonable Householder, in the stock of provisions he had so carefully collected:

II. That such use must be estimated from the apparent wants of those, to whom this knowledge is dispensed; for so the frugal householder expends his provisions on those who evidently stand in need of them: And

III. Lastly, That among these wants, some, at certain conjunctures, may be more general, or more pressing, than ordinary; and then his first care must be to relieve these, though other real, and perhaps considerable wants, be, for the present, neglected by him: just, again, as the discreet householder is anxious to provide against an uncommon distress that befalls his whole family, or the greater part of it, or that threatens the immediate destruction of those whom it befalls, though he suspend his care, for a season, of particular, or less momentous distresses.

In these THREE respects, then, I propose to illustrate and enforce the comparison of the Text, without any apprehension of being thought to do violence to it.

I. The knowledge of a well-instructed Scribe must be directed to the edification of his charge, and not at all to the gratification of his own vanity.

This conclusion results immediately from the subject of the comparison. For the Christian Scribe is not compared to a prince, who is allowed, and even expected, to consult his own state and magnificence; or, to one of those popular magistrates in ancient times, whose office it was to exhibit splendid shews, and furnish expensive entertainments, to their fellow-citizens: but to a plain Jewish householder, who had nothing to regard beyond the necessary, or, at most, decent accommodation of his family.

And the comparison is aptly made, as we shall see if we consider, either the end of a preacher’s office, or the decorum of his character.

His OFFICE obliges him to intend the most essential interests of mankind, the reformation of their lives, and the salvation of their souls. And when the object of his care is so important, what wonder if all inferior considerations fall before it?

Besides, the Christian preacher has a commission to discharge, a divine message to deliver. And in such a case, men look not for ingenuity, but fidelity. An ancient, or a modern sophist may make what excursions he thinks fit into the wide fields of science; and may entertain us with his learning, or his wit, as he finds himself able. He may, I say, do this; for he has only to recommend himself to our esteem, and to acquire a little popular reputation. But WE have a dispensation committed to us, a form of sound words, from which we must not depart, a doctrine, which we are to deliver with uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity[2]. We please not men, but God; or if men, to their good, only, to edification[3].

The DECORUM of our character requires, too, that we be superior to all the arts of vanity and ostentation. Even in secular professions, it is expected that this rule of propriety be observed. A Physician would be ridiculous, that was more curious in penning a prescription, than in weighing the matter of it: and the Advocate would be little esteemed, that should be more solicitous to display himself, than to serve his client. How much more then may it be expected from a preacher of righteousness, that HE should forget his own personal importance amid the high concerns of his profession!

And such was indeed the conduct of our best guides, in the ministry. The ancient Fathers were, many of them, richly furnished with all the endowments, that might be required to set themselves off to the utmost advantage. Yet we find them, in their homilies and discourses to the people, inattentive to every thing but their main end; delivering themselves, with an energy indeed, but a plainness and even negligence of expression[4], that tempts frivolous readers, sometimes, to make a doubt of their real, and, from other monuments of their skill and pains, unquestioned abilities.

And, in this contempt of secular fame, they did but copy the example of St. Paul himself, the great Apostle of the Gentiles; who, though distinguished by the sublimest parts, though profound in his knowledge of the Law, and not unacquainted with Gentile learning, affected no display either of his natural or acquired talents, but, as he tells us himself (and his writings attest the truth of his declaration), determined to know nothing, among the faithful, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified[5].

Not that what abilities we have, are always to lie concealed. There are occasions, no doubt, when they may properly, that is, usefully, be exerted. But the minister of the Gospel does not go in quest of such occasions: he only adapts himself to them, when they come in his way; and then pursues them no farther than the end, he has in view, the edification of others, not his own credit, demands from him.

By this rule, the preachers of the word are to conduct themselves. By the same rule, it will, therefore, be but just to estimate their charitable labours; and, when we see nothing to admire in them, to conclude, That this plainness of character may not be always owing to incapacity, but sometimes, at least, to discretion and the higher regards of duty.

And this candour, as liable as it is to misinterpretation, will not be thought excessive, if you reflect, that, as, in general, they are bound to consult the good of their charge, and to deliver nothing to their auditors, but what they foresee, or presume at least, will be useful to them: So

II. In the next place, The degree of that utility must be regarded by the prudent dispenser of God’s word, and can only be estimated by the apparent wants of those, to whom his instructions are addressed.

It is an especial part of the householder’s prudence to take care, that his treasure be laid out on those, who have most need of it. He has enough to do, perhaps, to satisfy the more pressing demands of his domestics; and the rules of a good œconomy require that he regard those, before their humourous inclinations, or even their more tolerable necessities. To speak in Jewish ideas, He, that wants a coat, to defend himself from the injuries of the weather, must be supplied with that necessary garment, though he go without a cloak; or, when a piece of bread is called for, it must be administered to the hungry, though others be made to wait for their delicacies of milk and honey; or, a lamb from the fold may be served up at an ordinary feast, while the fatted calf is reserved for some more solemn occasion.

Just thus it is in the dispensation of the word. We apply ourselves, first and principally, to relieve the more importunate demands of our hearers; and, not being able, at the same time, to provide for all, we prefer the case of those who are starving for the want of necessary instruction, to that of others who are in a condition to subsist on what hath already been imparted to them.

Hence it is, that we are most frequent in pressing the fundamental truths of the Gospel: as well knowing, that very many have yet to learn, or at least to digest, the first principles of their religion; and that few, in comparison, are either prepared, or enough disposed, to go on to perfection.

There are those, perhaps, who expect us to clear up some nice point of casuistry, or to lay open to them the grounds and reasons of some obnoxious article in the Christian Creed: in a word, they would take it kindly of us, if, dropping the common topics, which have been long and much worn in the service of religion, we provided some fresh ones, for their entertainment; and instead of the stale fragments, which are always at hand, and lie open to all the family, we served up to them something of better taste from the inner rooms of our store-house, where our choicest viands are laid up. All this is extremely well: and in due season, so far as is fitting, the charitable dispenser of God’s word will not be wanting to their expectations; for he has gathered nothing, however rare or exquisite, in the course of his household industry, of which he does not wish them to partake. But, for the present, he finds this indulgence to be out of place: he sees, that the plainest duties of life, and the most unquestioned articles of the faith, are, first of all, to be inculcated: he perceives, that numbers want to be put in mind of old practical truths; and perhaps he understands, that even those, who are the most forward to call out for novelties in speculation, do not make this demand with the best grace. He could amuse them, it may be, with a curious theological Lecture: but what if their sense of divine things be dead? what if they want to have their minds stimulated by the admonitions, and their consciences alarmed with the terrors, of the Gospel?

The question is not put at hazard. For so, the Roman Governor was impatient to hear St. Paul concerning the faith in Christ; when yet the Apostle chose to reason with him of righteousness, temperance, and judgement to come: plain moral topics, such as had often been discussed before him in the schools of philosophy, but were now resumed to good purpose; for in the end, we are told, Felix trembled.

Even, in the case of those, who may be decent in their lives, who are enough instructed in what is called morality, nay, and would take it ill to be thought wanting in a competent share of religious knowledge, a discourse on the elements of the faith may not be, altogether, unseasonable. For there are, of these, who exclude Religion, from their scheme of morality; or Christianity, from their scheme of religion; or who, professing Christianity, scarce know what Redemption means: who are yet to learn with what awful, yet filial piety, they are to look up to God the Father; who reflect not, what transcendant honour is due from them to God the Son; and who have scarce, perhaps, heared, or have little regarded, whether there be any Holy Ghost.

If any such attend our assemblies, think not much that we are ready to impart to them the plainest, the commonest, because the most necessary, instruction: and, though we would consult the wants of all, you are not to be surprized, or disgusted, if we run to the relief of those first, who want our assistance most; and, like the good householder, bestow our old things on the needy and indigent, before we expend our new on the curious and delicate; who might, we will say, be better accommodated with them, but are not, in the mean time, destitute of what is needful to their spiritual life. But

III. This care is more especially required of the Christian Scribe, when his charge is exposed, in certain conjunctures, to new and extraordinary wants, which, if not relieved in the instant, may grow to be ruinous, and absolutely fatal: then, above all, he is to consider, not what instruction is most acceptable to his hearers, but what their critical situation demands.

For, here again, the example of the watchful and beneficent householder, is our direction. The season may be uncommonly severe and inclement: or, a dangerous, perhaps a contagious disease, afflicts his family; and then the warmest, although the coarsest, clothing must be sought out for the naked; and not the most palatable, but the most wholesome food, must be administered to the sick.

Disasters, like these, sometimes befall the household of Christ. A cold atheistic spirit prevails, and chills the vital principles of all virtue, as well as religion: or a pestilent heresy spreads its venom through the church, and turns the medicine of life itself, the salutary instruction of God’s word, unless prepared and applied by skilful hands, into a deadly poison. Then it is that the well-appointed Scribe emulates the generous care and pains of the good householder; and whatever he has in store, of ancient or modern collection, whether of philosophy or criticism, whether of eloquent persuasion or sound logic, all must be brought forth, to warm the piety, or to purify the faith, of his hearers.

We, of this nation, have not been so happy as to want examples of such distresses.

1. The fanatical sects, that sprung up in abundance amid the confusions of the last century, had so corrupted the word of God by their impure glosses on the Gospel-doctrine of Grace, that the age became immoral on principle, and, under the name of Saints, engendered a hateful brood of profligate Antinomians; that is, a sort of Christians, if they may be so called, who turned the grace of God into licentiousness, and, to magnify his goodness, very conscientiously transgressed his Laws. In a word, they taught, that the elect were above ordinances, and might be saved without, nay in defiance of, the moral Law.

This horrid divinity struck so directly at the root of all true religion, that it could not but alarm the zeal of good men. Accordingly, about the time of the Restoration, and for some years after it, a number of eminent Divines (and ONE especially, well known, and deservedly honoured, in this place[6]) bent all their nerves to expose and confound so pernicious a heresy: and with so invincible a force of plain and perspicuous reasoning, as brought most men to their senses, and effectually silenced, or disgraced, the rest. They opened the grounds and obligations of morality so plainly, and set the Gospel scheme of salvation through faith, working by charity, in so full and striking a light, that injured Virtue recovered her ancient honours, and yet was taught to acknowledge a just dependance on saving Faith.

Such was the triumph of enlightened reason and well-interpreted Scripture over Antinomianism: while yet many perverse, and more mistaken, hearers of those days, were ready to revile their teachers, for dwelling so much and so long on these old topics, and would have gladly received other, and more novel instructions, at their hands.

2. But now the licence of that age, which followed the Restoration, was gone over, on the sudden, into other extravagances, equally ruinous to the souls of men.

It had been made too clear to be denied, that moral righteousness is of indispensable obligation, so long as there is a God to serve, or common sense is allowed to have any hand in explaining his laws. To get rid then of so inconvenient a restraint, as genuine morality; many daring spirits of that time, rushed into Atheism; while the more timid, took refuge in Popery. For, to disown a moral Governour, or to admit that any observances of superstition can release men from the duty of obeying him, equally serves the purpose of those, who resolve to be as wicked as they dare, or as little virtuous as they can.

These new evils, each of which, in its turn, the court itself had countenanced, or introduced, called for fresh remedies; and it was not long before they were administered, with effect. The same eminent persons, who had vindicated moral virtue, now supported the cause of piety, and of protestantism, with equal success. They overturned all the prophaneness, and all the philosophy of Atheism, from its foundations: and, with resistless argument, baffled the presumption, and beat down the sophistry, of the church of Rome. Yet these matchless servants of truth were charged by some, with indiscretion in bringing to light all the horrors of atheistic impiety, though in order to expose them; and with preposterous zeal, in directing all their efforts against Popery, though it wore, at that time, so malignant an aspect on all our dearest interests.

They were not, however, diverted by these clamours from pursuing their honest purposes: and we owe it to them, in a great measure, that these two systems of iniquity, I mean, Atheism, and Popery, are no longer in repute among us.

3. Still, the state of the times may be altered, without being much improved. For, though few will avow direct Atheism, and not many, I hope, are proselyted to Popery, yet the number of those is not small, who are but Protestants, in name; and scarce Deists, in reality. Many profess, or secretly entertain, a disbelief of all revealed Religion; and many more take unwarrantable liberties with the Christian faith, though they pretend to respect it. At the same time, as extremes beget each other, there are those who seem relapsing into the old exploded fanaticism of the last age; from a false zeal, it may be, to counteract the ill impression of those other licentious principles.

Thus is the unbalanced mind of man always shifting from one excess into another; and rarely knows to sustain itself in that just mean, which pure religion and right reason demand. Wonder not therefore, that our cares are still suited to the exigencies of our hearers; and that we labour to supply them with that provision of sacred truth, which they most want; that we strive to excite in them awful ideas of God’s moral government; are instant in season and out of season to assert the utility, the importance, the necessity of divine revelation; and are anxious to maintain the prerogatives of Christian faith, yet without depreciating the moral Law, or infringing the rights of natural reason: that we admonish you to think soberly, to inquire modestly, and to believe what the word of God expressly teaches, though ye do not, and can not, many times, comprehend the height and depth of divine wisdom: that we remember, in short, what is required of Stewards, who are appointed to dispense the treasures of Christian knowledge, and to superintend the household of God.

I have now gone through the several topics, which our Lord’s parable of the Householder seemed naturally to suggest to me: not so much with a view to make our own apology (for if we do not our duty, we deserve, and if we do, we want, none) as to set before you a just idea of our office and ministry, that so ye may judge rightly and equitably of us, for your own sakes. For it is not indifferent to the household, what opinion is entertained of the Householder. Many will not suffer him to relieve their wants, or perhaps acknowledge they have any wants to be relieved, if they do not conceive with some respect of his discretion, at least, and good-will.

And though, in the discharge of our duty to all, we may seem to neglect many, and may even dissatisfy, nay offend some; yet, on reflexion, you will see that we are not wanting to our trust—if we always endeavour to dispense salutary doctrines—if, especially, we dispense such as the apparent and urgent necessities of men call for—and, above all, if we be ready to dispense all our treasures, new and old, when the more alarming distresses of the Christian church require, on occasion, our best attention and liberality.

To conclude: We respect your good opinion; nay, perhaps, are too solicitous to obtain it. But we would, or we should, in the first place, please him, who hath called us to serve, and expects us to be faithful, in all his house[7]. For we presume to be something more than Orators, or Philosophers, plausible and artificial discoursers, who have nothing in view but their own credit, and are eloquent or ingenious, that is, vain, by profession. We have a character to sustain of greater dignity, but less ostentation. For WE preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus our Lord; and ourselves, your servants for Jesus sake[8].

SERMON II.
PREACHED NOVEMBER 8, 1767.

1 Cor. x. 15.

I speak as to wise men: judge ye what I say.

Though St. Paul said this to the Corinthians, on a particular occasion, in reference to a single argument he was then prosecuting, and possibly not without an intended sarcasm on those whom he here qualifies with the name of Wise men, yet the words themselves express the Apostle’s own constant practice; and what is more, they express the general spirit and genius of that Religion, which he was commissioned to teach.

For the Christian Religion, divine as it is in its origin, sublime in its precepts, and profound in its mysteries, yet condescends to apply itself to the rational faculties of mankind; and, secure in its own native truth and evidence, challenges the wise and learned to judge of its pretentions.

So that we may regard the declaration of the text, as a standing precept to the Ministers of the word, to speak as to wise men; and to the hearers of it, to use their best faculties, in judging of what they say.

These then shall be the two parts of my discourse upon it. Each will suggest some important reflexions to the persons respectively concerned; to US, who preach the word, and to YOU, who hear it.

I. The Religion of Jesus was designed for the instruction of all sorts and degrees of men. Nay, it is even alledged as one mark of its divinity by Jesus himself, that not only the rich and wise, but the poor and simple, have the Gospel preached unto them[9]. And from the different reception of it, at first, by these two sets of men, we may perhaps see which of them deserved it most. But be this as it will, the Christian Religion was destined for the use of all mankind. Its saving truths are to be made known to all: yet with some difference in the mode of teaching them, according to the capacities of those to whom they are addressed.

To plain and illiterate men, who have no prejudices to counteract the virtue of God’s word, and no pride of reason or science to question its authority, the true and proper way is, no doubt, to represent the great truths of the Gospel, simply and clearly, accompanied with its more general and obvious proofs, and enforced upon them with all the earnestness of exhortation. These proofs, and this exhortation, carry such light and force in them, as may be reasonably expected to have an effect upon all men: yet to the WISE, who are prompted by their curiosity, to habits of inquiry, to ask a reason of the hope that is in us[10], and who are qualified by their parts and studies to judge of such reason, we are instructed to address a more elaborate answer, or apology.

The question then will be, On what principles such Apology must be formed? A question the more important, because the apologies of all times have been too generally constructed on false and pernicious principles; on such as cannot support, but rather tend to weaken and disgrace, the very cause they would defend.

Such were the apologies, many times, of the ancient Christians, who would incorporate with the divine religion of Jesus the vain doctrines of the Gentile philosophy: and such have been too often the more modern apologies, which debase the word of God, and corrupt it, with the dreams of our presumptuous metaphysics.

Our Religion has suffered much in both these ways: not, that reason or philosophy of any kind, truly so called, can dis-serve the cause of a divine Religion; but that we reason and philosophize falsely, or perversely; that is, we apply falshood to truth; or, we misapply truth itself, in subjecting the incomprehensible mysteries of our faith to the scrutiny and minute discussion of our best reason.

From these miscarriages, we are admonished what to avoid: the example of the Apostle Paul, who spake as to wise men, may instruct us in the right way of prosecuting the defence of the Gospel.

From him, then, we learn to frame our answers and apologies to inquisitive men, on the great established truths of natural and revealed Religion; to assert the expediency of divine Revelation, from the acknowledged weakness and corruption of human nature, and from the moral attributes of the Deity; to illustrate the œconomy of God’s dispensations to mankind by arguments taken from that œconomy itself: to reason with reverence[11] on the nature of those dispensations, to shew what their general scope and purpose is, how perfect an agreement there is between them, and how divinely they are made to depend on each other.

In doing this, we shall find room for the exercise of our best and most approved reason: we shall look far ourselves, (and be able to let others) into the harmony of the divine councils, as they are set before us in the inspired volumes: and, though we may not penetrate all the depths and obscurities of those councils, yet, as in contemplating the WORKS of God, which we know but in part, we can demonstrate his eternal power and Godhead, so, in studying his WORD, we shall see enough of his unsearchable wisdom and goodness, to put to silence the ignorance of foolish, and to satisfy the inquiries of wise, men.

I say, to satisfy the inquiries of wise men: for wise men do not expect to have all difficulties in a divine system cleared up, and every minute question, which may be raised about it, answered (for this, God himself, the author and finisher of it, can only perform, and much less than this is abundantly sufficient for our purpose); but all they desire is to see the several parts of it so far cleared up, and made consistent with each other, and, upon the whole, to discover such evident marks of a superior wisdom, power, and goodness in the frame and texture of it, as may convince them that it is truly divine, and worthy of the Supreme Mind to whom we ascribe it.

When we speak thus as to wise men, we do all that wise men can require of us: if others be still unsatisfied, the fault is in themselves; they are curious, but not wise.

I lay the greater stress on this mode of defending the Christian Religion from itself, that is, by arguments taken from its own nature and essence, because it shortens the dispute with inquirers, and secures the honour of that Religion, we undertake to defend.

First, It shortens the dispute with Inquirers, by cutting off the consideration of all those objections which men raise out of their own imaginations. The defender of Christianity is not concerned to obviate every idle fancy, that floats in the head of a visionary objector. Men have not the making of their Religion, but must take it for such as the Scriptures represent it to be. And if we defend it on the footing of such representation, we do all that can be reasonably required of us. It is nothing to the purpose what men may imagine to themselves concerning the marks and characters of a divine Revelation: it is enough, that there are such marks and characters in the Religion of Jesus (whether more or fewer, whether the same or other, than we might previously have expected, is of no moment) as shew it, in all reasonable construction, to be divine. And thus our labour with Inquirers is much abridged, while all foreign and impertinent questions are rejected and laid aside.

Next, this mode of defence secures the honour of that religion, we undertake to support. For, if we fail in our endeavours to unfold some parts of the Christian system, we are but in the condition of those, who would experimentally investigate and clear up some difficulties in the system of nature. Want of care, or diligence, or sagacity, may subject both the Divine and the Philosopher to some mistakes: but either system is the same still, and lies open to the pains and attention of more successful inquirers. Nobody concludes that the system of nature is not divine, because this or that Philosopher has been led by hasty experiments to misconceive of it. And nobody should conclude otherwise of the Christian system, though the Divine should err as much in his scriptural comments and explications. Whereas, when we attempt to vindicate Christianity on principles not clearly contained in the word of God, we act like those who form physical theories on principles which have no foundation in fact. The consequence is, That not only the labour of each is lost, but the system itself, which each would recommend, being hastily taken for what it is unskilfully represented to be, is vilified and disgraced. For thus the Christian system has in fact been reviled by such as have seen, or would only see it, through the false medium of Popish or Calvinistical ideas: and thus the system of nature itself hath, it is said, been blasphemed by ONE[12], who judged of it from the intricacies of a certain astronomical hypothesis. The remedy for this evil, is, to solve scriptural difficulties by scriptural principles, and to account for natural appearances by experimental observations: and then, though the application of each may be mistaken, the system remains inviolate, and the honour both of God’s Word and Works is secured.

And let thus much suffice, at present, for the duty of him, who speaketh as to wise men. Much more indeed is required to the integrity, and still more to the success, of his defence. But he that speaketh, as the oracles of God, that is, who defends a divine Religion on its own divine principles, does that which is most essential to his office; and eminently discharges the part of a wise speaker, since he plans his defence in the best manner.

II. It now remains to consider the other part of the text, which challenges the wise men, to whom the Apostle spake, to JUDGE of what he said to them.

From the time, this challenge was given by the learned Apostle, there never have been wanting wise men, disposed and forward to accept it. And thus far, all was well: for they had a right to exercise this office of judging for themselves, if they were, indeed, capable of it. But have they considered, to what that capacity amounts? and that much more is required to make a good JUDGE, than a good SPEAKER?

Let us briefly examine then the pretentions of those, who have at all times been so ready to sit in judgement on the Advocates for Religion, by the known qualities of a capable Judge: which, I think, are Knowledge, Patience, Impartiality, Integrity, under which last name I include Courage.

1. The first requisite in a Judge, is a competent knowledge in the subject of which he judges, without which his other qualities, how respectable soever, are rendered useless. Nor is this knowledge, in the present case, inconsiderable. For, to say nothing of sacred and prophane Antiquity, to say nothing of the Sciences, and above all, the science of Ethics, in its largest extent, the Judge of religious controversy must be well versed, because the Advocate is required to be supremely so, in the great principles and doctrines of natural and revealed Religion. To decide on the merits of Christianity, without this knowledge, would be as absurd, as to decide on the merits of the English jurisprudence, without an acquaintance with the common law, and the Statute-book.

2. The next quality, required in a Judge, is Patience; or a deliberate unwearied attention to the arguments and representations of the Advocate, pleading before him. This attention is more especially expected, when the subject in debate is important, when it is, besides, intricate, and when the Advocate is able.

But these circumstances all concur, in the case before us. If the question concerning the truth and authority of Revelation be a cause of any moment at all, it is confessedly of the greatest: Again, if the scheme of Revelation be, as it pretends to be, divine, it must require the best application of our best faculties to comprehend it; and, lastly, as the ablest men of all times, of every profession and denomination, have appeared in its defence, such advocates may demand to be heared with all possible attention. For the Judge of such a cause, then, to confide in his own first thoughts, to listen negligently and impatiently, and to precipitate his determination, must be altogether unworthy the character he assumes.

3. It is expected of a Judge that he be strictly impartial; that he come to the trial of a cause without any previous bias on his mind, or any passionate and prevailing prejudices, in regard either to persons or things, which may indispose him to see the truth, or to respect it. And this turn of mind, so conducive to a right determination in all cases, is the more necessary here, where so many secret prejudices are apt, without great care, to steal in and corrupt the judgement.

4. The last quality, which men require in a Judge, is an inflexible Integrity: such as may infuse the virtue and the courage to give his judgement according to his impartial sense of things, without any regard to the consequences, in which it may involve him. This constancy of mind may be put to no easy trial in the present case; when the Judge’s determination may perhaps interest his whole future conduct; and when the censure, the scorn, and the displeasure of numbers, and possibly of those whom he has hitherto most considered and esteemed, may be incurred by such determination.

These are the great essential qualities which we look for in a Judge, and which cannot be dispensed with in a Judge of Religion. How far all, or any of these qualities are to be found in those, who take to themselves this office, I have neither time, nor inclination, to consider. For my purpose is not to disparage those who have exercised the right of judging for themselves in the great affair of Religion, nor to discourage any man from doing himself this justice: but simply to represent the difficulties, that lie in our way, and the qualifications we must possess, if we would judge a righteous judgement.

I leave it to yourselves, therefore, to apply these observations, as ye think fit. Ye will conclude, however, that to judge of the pretentions of your religion is no such easy task, as that any man, without parts, without knowledge, without industry, and without virtue, may presume to undertake it.

The sum of all I have said is, then, this. The Apostle, when he became an Advocate for the Gospel, condescended to speak, and it must therefore be more especially the duty of its uninspired advocates to speak as to wise men; that is, to employ in its defence the powers of reason and wisdom, of which they are capable. But it will be remembered, too, that much, nay more, is required of the Judges of it; and that they must approve themselves, not only wise, but, in every moral sense, excellent men, before they are qualified to pass a final judgement on what such Advocates have to say on so momentous a cause, as that of the Christian Religion.

SERMON III.
PREACHED MAY 17, 1767.

Rom. ii. 14, 15.

When the Gentiles, which have not the Law, DO by Nature the things contained in the Law, these, having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves: which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their CONSCIENCE also bearing witness, and their thoughts in the mean while ACCUSING or else EXCUSING one another.

The scope of this chapter being to assert, that the Gentile, as well as Jew, had a right to be admitted into the Christian church, and that he was equally entitled to share in the blessings of it, the Apostle grounds his argument upon this Principle, “That, in the final judgement, there would be no respect of persons with God; but that Gentiles, as well as Jews, would be recompensed in that day, if not in the same degree, yet by the same rule of proportion, that is, according to their works.”

Whence it would follow, that, if this equal measure was to be dealt to both, in the future judgement, it could not seem strange if both were to be admitted to the present benefits and privileges of the Gospel.

But to keep off a conclusion so uneasy to his inveterate prejudices, the Jew would object to this reasoning, “That the Apostle’s assumption must be false; for that as God had given the Heathens no Law, they were not accountable to him: that, as there could be no room for Punishment, where no Law forbade, so there could be no claim to Reward, where no Law enjoined: and consequently, that the Heathen world, being left without Law, had no concern in a future recompence, at all.”

This suggestion the Apostle obviates, by shewing the inconsequence of it. His answer is to this effect. You, says he, conclude, that the Heathens are not accountable, because they have no Law. But it no way follows, because they had no Law extraordinarily revealed to them from Heaven, that therefore the Heathens had no Law, or Rule of life, at all. For these, having no such Law, were a Law unto themselves; that is, their natural reason and understanding was their Law.

And, for the real existence of such natural Law, he appeals to the virtuous ACTIONS of some Heathens, who DO by nature the things contained in the Law; who, besides, as it follows in the next verse, shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts in the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. In which last words are contained two additional arguments in proof of the same point; the first, taken from their own CONSCIOUSNESS of such a Law; and the second, from their reasonings between one another, ACCUSING or else EXCUSING: for this is the strict sense and literal construction of those words in the original, which we improperly translate—their thoughts in the mean while accusing or else excusing one another[13].

So that in the verses of the Text we have a PROPOSITION asserted; and THREE distinct arguments brought in proof of it. The proposition is, that the Heathen are a Law unto themselves, or, as it is otherwise expressed, have a Law written in their hearts. The arguments in proof of it are, 1. The virtuous lives of some heathen, doing by nature the work of the Law: 2. The force of conscience, testifying their knowledge of such Law: and, 3. lastly, their private and judicial reasonings among themselves, referring to the confessed authority of it.

In conformity to this method of the Apostle, my business will be to open and explain the several arguments in the order, in which they lie; and to confirm, by that means, the truth of his general Proposition, That there is a natural Law, or Rule of moral action, written in the hearts of men.

I. The argument from the virtues of the heathen world, in proof of a Law of nature, written in the hearts of men, will seem strange to some, who may object, “That, if the appeal be to action, it may with greater reason be inferred, there was not any such law; since the crimes and vices of the heathen world, as terribly set forth by St. Paul himself in the preceding chapter, were far more notorious, than its Virtues. So that if there be any force in St. Paul’s appeal to the virtuous lives of some heathen, as evincing a Law, written in their hearts, because their practice was governed by it; the like appeal to the vicious lives of many more heathen, should seem with still more force to prove the non-existence of such Law, in as much as it did not govern their practice.” But the answer is obvious. For a law may be in part, or even totally, violated by persons under a full conviction of its existence and obligation: whereas it is hard to imagine, that any number of men, of different times, in distant places, and under different circumstances of age, temper, and education, should exhibit in their lives the same tenour of action, without the guidance of some fixed and common Rule.

This then being observed, let us turn our eyes upon the heathen world; on that part, more especially, which is best known to us from the authentic monuments of Greek and Roman story. For bad as that world was, it cannot be denied to have furnished many instances of extraordinary virtue. We find there justice, temperance, fortitude, and all those virtues, which their own Moralists called Offices, and which the sacred page has dignified with the name of Graces, exhibited in their fairest forms, and emulating, as it were, even Christian perfection[14].

But it will be said of both these people, what was long since objected by one of them to the other, that their actions were not so illustrious, as is pretended; that we take the accounts of them from their own interested relaters, to whose vanity or genius we are rather to impute the fine portraits, they have given us, of pagan virtue, than to real fact and the undisguised truth of things[15].

Be this allowed. Still there will be ground enough to enforce the Apostle’s conclusion. For whence, if not from the source to which he points, could be derived those numerous corresponding instances, though of faint, unfinished Virtue? how, but by nature, did the heathen, in any degree, the things of the Law? and whence, the traces of that conduct in the pagan world, which the Law itself prescribed as virtuous?

Or, were the evidence from facts ever so suspicious, whence those admired portraits and pictures themselves? or, by what accountable means has it come to pass, that their historians and panegyrists have been able to feign so successfully? In truth, had the pagan world afforded no one instance of a virtuous people, I had almost said, no one instance of a virtuous character, yet would the projected form of such a people, by one hand[16], and the delineation of such a character, by another[17], have been a certain evidence of some Rule of life and manners, written in the heart, if not transcribed into practice; influencing the judgement to approve, if not the will to obey it. But this consideration, perhaps, comes more naturally under the second head of the Apostle’s reasoning, which is drawn,

II. From the force of conscience in the heathen world.

To perceive the force of this argument, it must be remembered, That, by conscience, is only meant a man’s judgement concerning the quality of his own actions; which judgement, however come at, whether by use, or institution, by reason, or instinct, equally supposes some Law, or Rule of conduct, by which the nature of each action is tried, and by which its worth is estimated. Now it is of no moment in the present case, from which soever of these sources that judgement is immediately drawn, since it cannot but be, that some fixed principle, common to human nature, and of equal extent with it, must have originally given birth to such judgement. For if use, or institution, be considered as the probable source of it, the question will recur, whence that Use, or what the original of that Institution? A question, which cannot be resolved, unless we conceive some natural law, as working at the root, and branching out, as it were, into Use, or Institution.

Nor is it sufficient to say, That the manners of different people are, and have been, widely different; and that conscience, or self-judgement, according as different notions or practices prevail, condemns, or approves the very same action. Without doubt, it does; but the consequence is not, as some sceptical writers have imagined, that there is no common principle of nature, distinguishing between right and wrong, or that moral action is of absolute indifference; but that men are, and have been, careless and corrupt; that they have either not used the light of nature, or have some way abused it. For it holds of Sentiment, as of Action, that, though the agreement of numbers in all times and places be a good argument for the existence of some common rule of right, as effecting such agreement (because otherwise no tolerable account can be given of it); yet the disagreement even of greater numbers is no proof against the existence of such Rule, as we can, without that supposition, give a satisfactory account of that disagreement. I call it a satisfactory account; for it comes from St. Paul himself, who has taken care to obviate this plausible objection. If it be said then, That the Heathen approved bad, and condemned good actions, we own they sometimes did, but answer with the Apostle, That, in such cases, they became vain in their imaginations, and that their foolish heart was darkened; that, as they did not search to retain God in their knowledge, did not exert their faculties to acquire or preserve a right sense of God’s nature and will, he gave them up to an unsearching mind, suffered them to darken and put out the light of their understandings, and so to do [and to approve] things that were not convenient[18].

This being the true account of the diversity of human judgement, such diversity only proves that the light of nature has been misused, not, that it was never given. Whereas, on the other hand, if the Heathen world can shew us, in general, a conformity of judgement in moral matters, under their state of nature, with that of the world, under the light of Revelation, what follows, but that they, having not the Law, shew the work of the Law written in their hearts?

But now that there was, in fact, such a conformity, we conclude from the accounts of these times, the sense of writers, and the confessions of persons themselves: the only means, by which a point of this nature can be established. The pagan historians and moralists are full of such lessons, as we now profit by: and even their poets, on the stage itself (where common nature is drawn for the sake of common instruction) represent their characters, for the most part, as good or bad, according to the ideas we should now entertain of them. In writers of all sorts, we find abundant evidence of this truth. Numberless persons are upon record, who confess, in their own cases, and attest, this uniform power of conscience. They applaud themselves for, what we should call, a well-spent life, and they condemn themselves for, what we call, a bad one. To touch on a topic so known as this, is, in effect, to exhaust it. I shall then but just point to the great Roman patriot[19] exulting in the memory of his Virtues: and to the Roman governour[20], so famous in sacred writ, whom the preaching of Paul, in concurrence with his own heart, made tremble for his Vices.

III. But if men did not feel the power of conscience operating within themselves, and declaring a Law written in their hearts, yet their daily conduct towards each other, in the civil concerns of life, would evidently proclaim it. For observe how studious men are to repel an injurious imputation, fastened on a friend; and still more, how they labour to assert their own innocence. What pains do we see taken, to overthrow a false evidence, and what colours of art do we see employed to palliate or disguise a true one! No man needs be told that this is the constant practice of Christians: and did not the Heathens the same? Here then is a fresh proof of the point in question; an argument of familiar evidence arising from the transactions of common life. For, in the altercations with each other, in reference to right and wrong, there is manifestly supposed some prior Law of universal reason, to which the appeal on both sides is directed, and by which the decision is finally to be made. And this, as the Apostle’s argument suggests, whichever of the contending parties be in the wrong: For the charging another with wrong conduct, equally implies a Rule, determining my judgement of moral action; as the defending myself or others from such a charge, evinces my sense of it. Thus, whether I accuse, or answer for myself, either way, I shew a law written in my heart; whence I estimate the right or wrong of the supposed question. Thus much might be inferred from the ordinary topics of conversation: but the case is still clearer, when they come to be debated in courts of Justice. More especially, therefore, the struggles and contentions of the Bar (for the terms, employed in the text, being forensic, direct us chiefly to that interpretation), a series of civil and judiciary pleadings, such as have been preserved to us, from heathen times, in the writings of a Demosthenes, or Cicero, are a standing, unanswerable argument for the existence of a Rule of Right, or Law of natural reason. For how should these debates be carried on without a Rule, to which the advocates of either party refer? or how should these judicial differences be composed, without a common Law, to arbitrate between them? And what though the Law, referred to, be a written institute: it was first written in the heart, before legislators transcribed it on brass, or paper.

You see then, the sum of the Apostle’s reasoning stands thus. The Heathens, who had no revealed Law, DID by nature, the things of the Law: their JUDGEMENT, too, of their own actions, conformed to the judgement of the Law: and, lastly, their DEBATES with one another, whether public or private, concerning right and wrong, evidenced their sense of some Law, which Nature had prescribed to them.

And in this fine chain of argument, we may observe the peculiar art, by which it is conducted, and the advantage, resulting from such conduct to the main conclusion. For if the argument from WORKS should seem of less weight (as it possibly might, after the Apostle’s own charge upon the heathen world, and in that age of heathen corruption) yet the evidence arising from CONSCIENCE, which was an appeal to every man’s own breast, could hardly be resisted: or, if conscience could be laid asleep (as it might be by vice and ill habits) it was impossible they could deny the DEBATES among themselves, or not see the inference that must needs be drawn from them.

It may, further, seem to have been with some propriety that the sacred reasoner employed these topics of argument, in an address to Romans: who could not but feel the weight of them the more, as well knowing the ancient VIRTUE of their country; as knowing too, that the Roman people had been famous for their nice sense of right and wrong, or, in other words, a moral CONSCIENCE; and that, as having been a free people, they had been always accustomed to DEBATES about moral action, public and private.

Such is the force, and such the elegant disposition and address, of the Apostle’s reasoning. The conclusion follows irresistibly, That there is a Law written in our hearts, or that, besides a Revealed Law, there is a law of natural reason.

That this conclusion is not injurious to revealed Law, but indeed most friendly and propitious to it; that, in particular, it no way derogates from the honour of the Christian Law, nor can serve in any degree to lessen the value, or supersede the use and necessity of it; I shall attempt to shew in another discourse.

SERMON IV.
PREACHED MAY 24, 1767.

Gal. iii. 19.

Wherefore then serveth the Law?

When the Apostle Paul had proved, in his Epistle to the[21]Romans, that if the uncircumcision kept the righteousness of the Law, his uncircumcision would be accounted for circumcision; that is, if the Gentile observed the moral law, which was his proper rule of life, he would be accepted of God, as well as the Jew, who observed the Mosaic Law; this generous reasoning gave offence, and he was presently asked, What advantage then hath the Jew[22]?

In like manner, when the same Apostle had been contending, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that the inheritance was not of the Law, but of Promise[23]; that is, that all men, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, were entitled to the blessings of the Christian covenant, in virtue of God’s promise to Abraham—that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed—and not the Jews exclusively, in virtue of the Mosaic Law, given to them only; the same spirit discovers itself, as before, and he is again interrogated by his captious disciples, Wherefore then serveth the Law? if the Gentiles may be justified through faith in Christ, and so inherit the promise made to Abraham, as well as the Jews, to what purpose was the Jewish Law then given?

And to these questions, how unreasonable soever, the learned Apostle has himself condescended to give an answer.

Now, the same perverseness, which gave birth to these Jewish prejudices, seems to have operated in some Christians; who, on being told, and even by St. Paul himself, of a Law of Nature, by which the Heathen were required to govern their lives, and by the observance of which, without their knowledge of any revealed Law, they would be finally accepted, have been forward in their turn, to ask, Wherefore then serveth the Law? Or, if there be a natural Law, according to which the very Heathen will be judged, and may be rewarded, what are the boasted privileges of Revealed Law, and, in particular, the revealed Law of the Gospel?

Now to this question (having, in my last discourse, asserted the proposition, which gives occasion to it) I shall reply, in the best manner I can, by shewing,

I. That the supposition of a natural moral Law is even necessary to the support of Revelation: And

II. That this supposition no way derogates from the honour of the Gospel.

I. That a natural moral Law is required to support the authority of Revelation, I conclude, not merely, because this supposition is actually made in sacred Scripture, because the sacred writers argue expressly from it, and every-where refer to it, but principally and chiefly, because, without admitting this prior Law of nature, we cannot judge of any pretended Revelation, whether it be divine or no. For, if there be no such moral Law, previously given, which our hearts and consciences approve, and to which our common nature assents, we can never see the fitness of any means, as conducive to a moral end; we can entertain no just and clear notions of moral action, properly so called; and consequently, we can have no ideas of what are called the moral attributes of God. Now, in this state of ignorance and uncertainty, how shall any man go about to prove to us the divinity of any Revelation, or through what medium can its truth or authenticity be established? We have no Rule, no principles, by which to judge of the Law, pretending to come from God: we cannot tell, whether it be worthy of him, or not: we do not so much as know, what worth or goodness is, either in ourselves, or in the Deity. Thus all internal arguments for the excellence of any Religion are at once cut off: and yet till, from such considerations, we find that a Religion may come from God, we cannot reasonably conclude, on any evidence, that it does come from him. The Religion of Mahomet may, for any thing we can tell, if there be no moral Law for us to judge by, be as worthy of God, as that of Jesus. Nor will any external arguments, even the most unquestioned miracles, of themselves, be sufficient to confirm its pretensions. For how shall we know, that these miracles are from God, unless we understand what his attributes are, and whether the occasion, for which they are wrought, be such as is consistent with them?

So that those zealous persons, who think they do honour to the revealed will of God, by denying him to have given prior natural Law, do, indeed, defeat their own purpose, and put it out of their power to judge of any Revelation whatsoever. There is, then, a Law of Reason, written in the heart, by which every Religion, claiming to be divine, must be tried; or we have no ground to stand upon in our endeavours to support the credit and divinity of any Religion.

What is, then, so necessary to the support of Revelation, in general, cannot, we may be sure,

II. Any way derogate from the honour of the Christian Revelation, in particular.

But, to put this matter out of all doubt, I shall distinctly shew, that the supposition of a natural moral Law neither discredits the USE; nor tends, in the least, to supersede the NECESSITY, of the Gospel.

And, 1. It does not discredit its use.

For, what, if all men be endowed with those faculties, which, if properly employed, may instruct us in the knowledge of God and ourselves, and of the duties we, respectively, owe to him and to each other? Is it nothing that this knowledge is rendered more easy and familiar to us by the lights of the Gospel? Is it nothing, that those laws, which men of thought and reflexion may deduce for themselves from principles of natural reason, are openly declared to all: that they are confirmed, illustrated, and enforced by express revelation? Is it of no moment, that the plainest and busiest men are as fully instructed in their duty, as men of science and leisure, the simplest as well as the wisest, the mechanic and the sage, the rustic and philosopher? Is it of no use, that men are kept steady in their knowledge and observance of the law of nature, by this pole-star of revelation? that they are secured from error and mistake, from the effects of their own haste, or negligence, or infirmity, from the illusions of custom or ill example, from the false lights of fanaticism or superstition, and from the perverseness of their own reasonings? Look into the history of mankind, and see what horrid idolatries have overspread the world, in spite of what Nature teaches concerning God; and what portentous immoralities have prevailed in the wisest nations, in defiance, nay, what is worse, under the countenance and sanction, of what was deemed natural Reason.

Add to all this, that the moral duties, we thus easily and certainly know, and without any danger of mistake or corruption, by means of the evangelical Law, are enjoined by the highest authority; are set off by the brightest examples; are recommended to us by new arguments and considerations; are pressed upon us by the most engaging motives, higher and more important than nature could suggest to us; and, lastly, are sublimed and perfected by the most consummate reason.

Still we are not got to the end of our account. Consider, further, our natural weakness, strengthened and assisted by the influences of divine Grace; the doubts and misgivings of Nature, in the momentous points of repentance and forgiveness of sin, cleared; the true end and destination of moral agents, discovered; a future judgement, ascertained; and the hopes of endless unspeakable glory, which nature could at most but desire, and had no reason (unless that desire be, itself, a reason) to expect, unveiled and fully confirmed to us.

This, and still more, is but a faint sketch of the advantages, which, even in point of morals, we derive from revealed Law. Go now, then, and say, that the light of nature, set up in your own hearts, obscures the glory, or discredits the use, of the everlasting Gospel!

2. But it is a low, degrading, and unjust idea of the Gospel, to regard it only, as a new code of morals, though more complete in itself, more solemnly enacted, and more efficaciously enforced, than the prior one of nature. Were the use of each the same, the honour of the Christian revelation would not be impaired, because its NECESSITY IS NOT SUPERSEDED.

For Christianity, rightly understood, is something, vastly above what Reason could discover or procure for us. It confirms, incidentally, the law of nature, and appeals to it; it harmonizes, throughout, with that and every other prior revelation of God’s will as it could not but do, if it were indeed derived from the same eternal source of light and truth. But, for all that, it is no more a simple re-publication of the natural, than of any other divine Law. It is a new and distinct revelation, that perfects and completes all the rest. It is the consummation of one great providential scheme, planned before the ages, and fully executed in due time, for the redemption of mankind from sin and death, through the mercies of God in Christ Jesus.

Now, in this view, which is that which Christianity exhibits of its own purpose, the scheme of the Gospel is not only of the most transcendant use, as it confirms, elucidates, and enforces the moral Law, but of the most ABSOLUTE NECESSITY: I say, of the most absolute necessity; in reference to the divine wisdom, and to the condition of mankind, both which, without doubt, if we could penetrate so far, required this peculiar interposition of Heaven, on principles of the highest reason, as well as goodness. But the necessity is apparent even to us, on the grounds of this very Revelation. For its declared purpose was to rescue all men from the power of Death, and to bestow upon them immortal life in happiness. But, now, the same Gospel, that tells us this, tells us, withal, that, as in Adam all men died, so in Christ, only, shall all men be made alive; and that, without the blood of Christ, there could be no remission of the forfeiture incurred by the transgression of Adam. You see, then, that, to argue upon Gospel-principles (and the fair inquirer can argue upon no other) the Christian dispensation was necessary to fulfill the purposes of God to man, and to effect that which the divine councils had decreed in relation to him.

The consequence is, that though we admit a Law of nature, and even suppose that Law to have been a sufficient guide in morals, yet the honour of Christianity is fully secured, as it’s necessity is not superseded by the law of nature, which had not the promise of eternal life, and could not have it; such promise being reserved to manifest and illustrate the grace of God, through the Gospel.

Reason may be astonished at this representation of things, but finds nothing to oppose to it. It looks up, in silent adoration, to that supreme incomprehensible Power, which wills that which is best, and orders all things with the most perfect reason.

Nor let it be any objection, that the Law of Nature points to some just recompence of moral agents, independently of the Christian Law. Without doubt, it does; and, if the Gospel had never been vouchsafed to man, the judge of all the world would have done that which was fit and right. But can reason, can our own hearts, assure us, that the best of us could stand the scrutiny of strict justice, or be entitled to any recompense of reward? Or, if our presumption answer this question in our favour, have we the least pretence to that unspeakable reward, solely made known and promised in the Gospel, of everlasting life? Or, if mere Heathens, who are to be judged by their own Law, may be admitted to an eternal inheritance of life and glory, are we sure that this mercy (for mercy it is, and cannot be of right) is not vouchsafed to them, through Christ, though they may have been ignorant of Him? or rather, are we not certain that it must be so, since eternal life, on whomsoever bestowed, is the gift of God through Christ[24]?

What effect the Gospel-scheme of Redemption through Christ may have on those who lived of old under the Law of nature or any other Law, or who since the coming of Christ have continued in the same circumstances; it becomes us with great caution to enquire, because the Scriptures have not explicitly and fully instructed us in that matter. But, from certain expressions, occasionally dropped by the sacred writers, such as—that Christ died for all[25]; that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself[26]—that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world[27]; from these, and other passages of the like nature, we are authorised to conclude, that the benefits of Christ’s death do extend, in some sense, to all men: that, though each will be judged by the Law he lived under, the issue of that judgement will respect the death of Christ: that their living again to receive the recompence of the deeds done in the body, however Nature might suggest this event, is, in fact, brought about through the redemption that is in Christ[28]: and that whatever recompence they receive beyond what in strict justice is due unto them, is to be placed entirely and singly to his account. Such inferences, as these, are apparently reasonable, and just: nor do they prejudice, in any degree, the hope and faith of a Christian: others may have an interest in the blood of the cross; but our privilege is to know that we have it. The advantages flowing from this knowledge, are infinite. And therefore good reason there is to hold, with the Apostle, that, although the living God be the Saviour of all men, yet is he specially so of those that believe[29].

On the whole, then, if men will be putting such a question to us, as that of the text, Wherefore then serveth the Law? to what end was the Christian Law given, if there be a prior Law of Nature, to which men are responsible, and by which they will be judged? We are now prepared to give them a satisfactory answer.

We say then, first, that the Christian Law, to whatever ends it serveth, presupposes the existence of a prior natural Law, by which its pretensions must be tried, and, of course, therefore, its honour is supported.

But, secondly, and more directly, we answer, that the supposition of such natural Law no way diminishes the honour of the Christian Law; for that it serves to many the most important MORAL USES, over and above those to which the Law of nature serves; and that, further, it is of the most absolute NECESSITY to the accomplishment of its own great purpose, the redemption of the world, which the Law of nature could not effect, and which the divine wisdom ordained should only be effected through Christ Jesus. Lastly, we reply, that the benefits of the Gospel institution may, must, in some measure, extend to all the sons of Adam, as well as to those who are more especially enlightened by the Christian faith: that all mankind have an interest in the Gospel, though we Christians are first and principally indebted to it.

To conclude, whatever Law, whether we term it of nature, or revelation, has been given to us, we should receive with all thankfulness and reverence. But, more especially, should we adore the riches of God’s grace in the revealed Law of the Gospel, and in the singular unspeakable mercies conveyed by it. Far from envying the Heathen world the advantages they receive from the Law of Reason, under which they live; let us bless God for his impartial over-flowing goodness to all men; let us even rejoice for the benefits treasured up for them in a merciful dispensation of which, at present, they unhappily know nothing; and let us only acknowledge, with especial gratitude, the higher blessings vouchsafed to us, who are called to serve God in the Gospel of his Son[30].

SERMON V.
PREACHED MAY 1, 1768.

Heb. ii. 3.

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salvation?

The Religion of Nature, is the Law of God, speaking by the voice of Reason: the Religion of the Gospel, is the Law of God, speaking by the Revelation of Jesus. Each of these Laws is deservedly called, a great Salvation: the former, as the basis of all true Religion; the latter, as the consummation of all God’s religious dispensations to mankind.

Concerning the different purpose and genius of these Laws, I shall not now speak; at least, no farther, than is necessary to enforce the Apostle’s pathetic question, How shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salvation; if we neglect to observe these Laws, respectively given to promote man’s truest happiness?

The world abounds in commentaries on the Law of Nature, and on the Law of Christianity. But the misfortune is, that most men regard the study of these Laws, rather as an exercise of the mind, in the way of curious speculation, than as an interesting pursuit, which concerns their moral and religious practice. Which is just the same folly as would be charged on those, who should spend their lives in studying the municipal Laws of their country, with a total unconcern about the observance of them in their own persons.

Indeed the penal sanctions, which attend the violation of those Laws, would presently reclaim the student from this folly, and remind him of the end, to which his skill and knowledge in them should be principally directed. And if, in the study of general morals, or of revealed religion, he neglect to refer his speculation to practice, it is only because their penalties are less instant, or less constraining; and not that either the Law of Nature, or the Law of the Gospel, is without its proper and suitable sanctions.

I. These sanctions, as to the Law of Nature, as little as they are sometimes considered, are easily pointed out. For who, that grossly offends against that Law, but is punished with self-contempt; with an anxious dread of that power, which inscribed the law on his heart, and will, some way or other, secure the honour of it; with a sensible diminution of his health, or fortune, or reputation; sometimes, with the decline of his parts and faculties; with many uneasy and embarrassing, however unforeseen, situations, into which his vices lead him; with inevitable distresses, experienced in his own person, perhaps entailed on his posterity; in a word, sooner or later, with a disgust of this life, and a trembling apprehension of what may befall him in a future?

By these penalties, is the Law of Nature enforced: and they are such, as must soon convince a thinking man, indeed every man, that his true interest lies in the observance of that Law. At the same time, it must be owned, that this Law is strict and severe: It punishes with rigour, and rewards sparingly. Disobedience is certain, often intense, misery; while the most punctual compliance with it secures but a moderate enjoyment of this life, and so much happiness in another (if indeed any happiness can be hoped for) as in strict justice may be required.

Yet this is the Law, which many, it seems, had rather live and dye under, than accept the benefit of a far BETTER. For,

II. It pleased God, in compassion to his creature, man, not to leave him under this Law; but, by a special Revelation of his will, to confer those blessings upon him, which he had no ground in reason to expect, and no means in nature to obtain. Hence, the free gift of immortality, on the condition of obeying a certain precept, given to Adam. The gift was immense, and the condition easy: but, the latter not being observed, the former was as justly forfeited, as it had been graciously bestowed.

Still, through the exhaustless mercy of the supreme moral Governour, a way was found out, by which unhappy man might be restored to his lost inheritance. He returned again, for the present, under the former yoke of Nature, or, at best, was committed to the tuition of a rigid School-master (for such St. Paul styles the ritual Law of Moses); with some hopes, indeed, of a better state, to which he was one day to be advanced; but those, darkly intimated, and imperfectly conceived. The divine purpose, however, was to lead him, by this wholesome discipline, to Christ, to the religion of his Son; who, in due time, vindicated the honour of God’s government, by fulfilling all righteousness; expiated the foul offence of man’s disobedience by his death upon the cross; and reconveyed the inestimable gift of immortal life in happiness, on the new terms of faith in the divine Saviour, by whose ministry this great work was atchieved. Thus, Jesus became a ransom for the sins of mankind; appearing indeed in our nature at that season which was pre-ordained, but being slain (in the divine councils, and therefore the benefit of his death operating) from the foundations of the world.

This is a brief account of that great redemption in Christ Jesus, by which we are again restored to those hopes, which had been forfeited by Adam’s transgression. In consequence of this dispensation, the reward of obedience is eternal Life: not of debt, but of grace, through faith in the Redeemer. But this is not all. To facilitate and secure that obedience (to which so immense a benefit is now annexed) a perfect example of it is set before us in the person of Christ himself; and the holy Spirit is given to the faithful, to purify their hearts and lives, and to fill them with all joy and peace in believing[31]. On the other hand, the penalty of disobedience (what could it be less?) is a perpetual exclusion from bliss and glory, with such a degree of positive suffering, annexed, as the respective demerits of incorrigible sinners, or the sanctity and wisdom of the divine government, may demand.

Add to all this, that the same scriptures, which open to us the terms of this dispensation, declare, likewise, that no other terms will ever be offered; that we are complete in Christ[32]; that all the divine councils, in regard to man, are closed and shut up in him; and that no further sacrifice remains for sin, but that every man, henceforth, must stand or fall by the terms of the everlasting Gospel.—How then shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salvation?

III. Still, as I said, there are those, who had rather trust to the Law of Nature, than the Law of Grace; who had rather take their chance of being saved by the rule of their own Reason, than owe their Salvation to the methods prescribed to them by the rule of the Gospel.

Their pretences for this perverse choice, are various: but the true reason, I suppose, is, that the dispensation of the Gospel, though it be unspeakably more benign, more gracious, more encouraging to the good and virtuous, is, at the same time, more awful, more terrifying, to resolved impenitent sinners, than the dispensation of Nature: and they are content to give up their hopes of that immortal prize, which the revelation of Jesus holds out to them, rather than encounter the hazard of that severe sentence, which attends the forfeiture of it.

Be it so then: ye had rather forego the hopes of heaven, than have your minds disquieted with the fear of hell.

But, first, do ye not see, that there is something base and abject in this disposition? For what generous man will not aspire to an immense reward, which Heaven, in extreme kindness, may be almost said to force upon him, because there may be danger in coming short of it? “Yes, but the danger is immense, too.” Rather say, the loss is immense: the danger of incurring this loss, is not so. For what, indeed, is the danger, when Heaven is your guide, and a crown of glory your hope; when ye have God’s word to assure you of the prize, ye contend for; when ye have the holy Spirit of God to assist you in the pursuit; when ye have the Son of God, your all-merciful Saviour himself, to be your Judge, and the dispenser of that prize to you; when, with all these encouragements on the one hand, ye are, besides, quickened by a salutary fear of justice, on the other; and when all that is required of yourselves is, a reasonable faith, a willing mind, and a sincere, though, in many respects, imperfect obedience? Is the danger to be much esteemed, when the helps are so great, when the labour is so small, and the success almost certain? But,

Secondly, Consider, also, whether ye do not even prevaricate with yourselves, when ye say, ye had rather take up with a less reward, than run the hazard of so great a punishment. Ye certainly resolve not to contend for any reward at all, not even for the reward of Nature. If ye did, ye might with more ease, as well as certainty, obtain that of the Gospel. For whether is easier, think ye, to obtain a gift from infinite mercy, or to extort a debt from infinite justice?

But, Lastly, the matter is not left to your choice. When God, in his wisdom, had projected a scheme for the salvation of mankind before the ages; when he had prosecuted that scheme by many successive revelations of himself, by many notices and preparatory indications of his good pleasure; when he had separated a chosen family from the rest of the world, to serve as a repository of his councils, and to minister to himself in the execution of them; when he had sent forth his angels to assist in this great work, and had inspired many prophets and holy men to signify, beforehand, the glories of a new kingdom which he meant to establish on earth, and to prepare men for the reception of it; when, after all these preludes of his wisdom and goodness, he came, in due time, to astonish the world with the completion of this adorable scheme, by sending forth his only begotten Son, the express image of his person, to take upon him our nature, to suffer and to die for us; and, by raising up Apostles and Evangelists, under the guidance of his holy Spirit, to record these amazing transactions; and, by the attestation of stupendous miracles, to spread the knowledge of them over the face of the earth: when this, I say, and more, had been done by the Almighty to usher in his last best dispensation into the world, think not, that all this mighty apparatus was to be thrown away on our caprice or obstinacy; and that, after all, we may be at liberty to reject his whole design, or take as much, or as little of it, as our wayward fancies shall suggest to us. No: assuredly the councils of Heaven will stand firm, whatever attempts we may make, in our wisdom, or weakness, to subvert them. As well may we think to overturn the everlasting mountains, or push the earth itself from its centre, as to defeat or set aside one tittle of that eternal purpose, which God hath purposed in Christ Jesus[33]. To whomsoever the sound of the Gospel is come, whether he will hear, or not hear, by that Gospel he must stand or fall: he is, thenceforth, under the bond of the Covenant: through faith in Jesus, he inherits the promises; or, if he withhold his faith, it is not at his option to have no concern in the threats of the Gospel.

I know what is commonly said to representations of this sort—“That Faith depends not on the will, but on the understanding: that, when the evidence for the truth of any proposition is full and clear, it constrains my assent; when it is otherwise, I reject the proposition, as false, or, at best, suspend my belief of it; and, in either case, as without merit, so without blame: that no Law is obligatory to me, any farther than I see cause to admit the authority of it; and that no pretence of its divine original can subject me to the sanctions of it, unless, on my best inquiry, I allow that claim to be well founded: that, consequently, the Law of Christianity cannot concern him, who is not convinced of its truth; that, where this conviction is not, disbelief must be a matter purely indifferent: and that He only is responsible to that Law, who understands it to be his duty to be controuled and governed by it.”

This reasoning is plausible; and has many advocates, because it flatters the pride and independency of the human mind.—But, when a Law is promulged with that evidence, which the divine Legislator (for of such I am now speaking) sees to be sufficient for the conviction of a reasonable man, it is concluding too fast, to suppose, that I am innocent in rejecting it; or that I am not bound by it, though I do reject it. Error, or unbelief, is only indifferent, when it is perfectly involuntary or invincible; but there is clearly no room for this plea in the present case, when, by the supposition, there is no want of fit evidence.

Even in the case of human Laws, my rejection of them may be blameable, though I neither admit the authority nor the equity of the laws themselves. For there may be evidence enough of both, if I will but attend to it. Now put the case of a divine Legislator; and what was supposeable, becomes certain. For the attributes of the Deity will permit no doubt, but that, when he gives a Law to man, he will afford such proofs of it, as may, in reason, satisfy those, to whom it is addressed. So that their rejection of it can only proceed from some neglect or wilfulness, on their own part, and not from the want of a sufficient attestation, on the part of the Legislator.

Ye see then, there is no absurdity in supposing the Law of Christianity to oblige those, who do not receive it: for if that Law be of God (and we argue now upon that hypothesis) the evidence for it must be such as is suited to our faculties; and being addressed, as the tenor of it shews, to all mankind, it binds of course all those to whom that evidence has been submitted.

And this indeed is the very language of that Law itself. For the Jews disbelieved the Gospel, when it was preached to them by our blessed Lord. But what says the Legislator to these unbelievers? Does he leave them to the Law of Nature, whose authority they did not dispute, or to the Law of Moses, which God himself, they knew, had given them? No such thing: he tells them, that very Law, which they rejected, should judge them. “He, that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the WORD, that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day[34].” And he assigns the reason of this determination—“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father, which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak:” that is, the Law, I give you, is of divine authority; and therefore not to be rejected without blame on any pretence by you, to whom the knowledge of it, and the proper evidence on which it rests, has been committed.

These reflexions, I know, have small weight with those, who treat the evidences of the Gospel with that scorn, which is familiar to some men. But such persons should, at least, see that their scorn be well founded. If not—but I will only say, they may subject themselves, for aught they know, to the penalties of the Gospel; I mean, to the future judgement of that man, whom, in this life, they would not have to reign over them[35].

But this remonstrance is properly addressed to those that are without, to the contemners of the Christian Law. To YOU, who are within the pale of Christ’s Church, and acknowledge his authority; who profess yourselves to be his servants; who admit no other Law, but in subjection to his, and have no expectation of life and glory from any other; to YOU, I say, the question of the text is above measure interesting, How shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salvation?

Compassion, and prudence, and charity may restrain you from censuring with severity the enemies of the faith; may dispose you to overlook, or to soften at least, the alarming denunciations of the Gospel, in which they are concerned. But for YOURSELVES, who have given your names to Christ, and have hope in him only; who know the wonders of mercy that have been wrought for you, and were finally completed on that cross, which is your trust and consolation, your pride and glory, it is almost needless to say what your interest, and what your obligation is, to observe, respect, and reverence the dispensation of the Gospel. Ye are self-condemned, if ye slight this Law: ye are ungrateful, up to all the possibilities of guilt, if ye make light of it: ye are undone for ever, if ye neglect so great Salvation.

What allowances it may please God to make for the prejudices, the passions, the slights, the blasphemies of unthinking and careless men, who have never embraced the faith of Jesus, it may not, perhaps, concern you to inquire. But ye know, that ye are responsible to that Law, which ye profess, and to that master, whom ye serve; that to you, indifference is infidelity; and disobedience, treason; that wilful unrepented sin in a Christian is without hope, as without excuse, shuts him out from all the rewards, and exposes him, even with his own full consent to all the punishments of the Gospel.

In a word, as their joy is great in believing, who obey the Gospel of Christ; so the guilt and the terror is proportionably great, to disobedient believers. For, dreadful as unbelief may prove in the issue to such as, through their own fault, have not come to the knowledge of Christ, Belief, without obedience, is more dreadful still. I have an apostle’s warrant for this assertion. For it had been better for us not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after we have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto us[36].

SERMON VI.
PREACHED NOVEMBER 16, 1766.

St. John, xiv. 8.

Philip saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Our Lord, being now about to depart out of the world[37], prepares his disciples for this unwelcome event by many consolations and instructions. He acquaints them, more particularly than he had hitherto done, with his own personal dignity. He tells them, that, as they believed in God, they were also to believe in him[38]; and that, although he should shortly leave them, it was only to remove from Earth to Heaven, to his Father’s house, where he should more than ever be mindful of their concerns, and whither I go, says he, to prepare a place for you[39]. And, to impress this belief (so necessary for their future support under his own, and their approaching sufferings) the more strongly upon them, He declares, in the most authoritative manner, that he, only, was the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and that no man could come to the Father, but by him[40]. Nay, to shew them how great his interest was, and how close his union, with the Father, he even adds, If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth, continues he, ye know him, and have seen him[41].

This last declaration seemed so strange to his disciples, who had no notion of seeing the Father in our Lord’s suffering state, or indeed through any other medium, than that of those triumphant honours, which their carnal expectations had destined to him, that one of them, the Apostle Philip, saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. As if he had said, “We know thee be a person of great holiness, and have seen many wonderful things done by thee; so that we cannot doubt but that thou art a prophet sent from God, for some great end and purpose of his providence. But if thy pretensions go so far as to require us to believe in Thee, as in the Father; if we are to conceive of Thee, as the only Life of the world; of so great authority with God, as to procure mansions in heaven for thy disciples; nay, of so great dignity in thine own person, as to challenge the closest union and communication with the eternal Father; if, indeed, we are to believe such great things of thee, it is but reasonable, as thou sayest; that, in knowing and seeing thee, we also know and see the Father; that we have the clearest and most unquestioned proofs of thy divinity. Shew us, then, the Father; make us see the glorious symbols of his presence; present us with such irresistible demonstrations of his power and greatness, as were vouchsafed to our Fathers, at the giving of the Law; such, as strike conviction on the senses, and overrule all doubt and distrust in so high a matter; shew us, I say, the Father, in this sense, and it sufficeth to our persuasion and firm belief in thee.”

We see, in this conduct of the Apostle Philip, a natural picture of those inquirers into the truth of our religion; who, because they have not the highest possible evidence given them of it, (at least, not that evidence, which they account the highest) are tempted, if not absolutely to reject the faith, yet to entertain it with a great mixture of doubt and suspicion. “If Christianity, say they, were what it pretends to be, the arguments for it would be so decisive, that nothing could be opposed to them; if it were, indeed, of God, the proofs of its claim had been such and so many, that no scepticism could have taken place, no infidelity, at least, could have kept its ground, against the force of them.”

When this wild fancy comes to take possession of men’s minds, the whole tenour of God’s dispensations is quarrelled with, and disputed: every circumstance in our Lord’s history looks suspicious: and every fact, applied to the confirmation of our holy faith, rises into a presumption against it.

The word of Prophecy has not been so clear and manifest, as it might have been: therefore, the proofs taken from it are of no validity. The miracles of Christ were not so public or so illustrious as might be conceived: therefore, they are no evidence of his divine mission. The scene of his birth and actions might have been more conspicuous: therefore, the light of the world could not proceed from that quarter. The Gospel itself was not delivered in that manner, nor by those instruments, which they esteem most fit; its success in the world has not been so great, nor its effects on the lives of men, so salutary, as might have been expected: therefore, it could not be of divine original.

But there is no end of enumerating the instances of this folly. Let me observe, in one word, that the greater part of the objections, which weak or libertine men have opposed to the authority of revealed Religion, are of the same sort with the demand in the text. The authors of them first imagine to themselves, what evidence would be the most convincing; and then refuse their assent to any other. Their constant language is that of the Apostle Philip—shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Now, to see how little force there is in this sort of argumentation, let it be considered, that such high demands of evidence for the truth of the Christian revelation, are IMPERTINENT, at the best; that they are, most probably, on the part of the revealer, IMPROPER to be complied with; that they must be, on the part of man, PRESUMPTUOUS, and unwarrantable.

I. All demands of this sort are clearly impertinent, and beside the purpose of a fair inquirer into the authority of a divine Religion. For the question is, whether such religion be not accompanied with that evidence, which is sufficient to determine the assent of a reasonable man; not, whether it be the highest in its kind, or in its degree, which might be imagined. There is an infinite variety, and, as we may say, gradation in the scale of moral evidence, from the highest forms of demonstration down to the lowest inducements of probability. The impatient mind of man, which loves to rest in assurance, may demand the former of these in every case: but the just and sober inquirer, whatever he may wish for, will submit to the latter. He takes the argument, as presented to him; he weighs the moment of it; and if, on the whole, it preponderates, though but by some scruples of probability, against the inductions on the other side, he is determined by this evidence, with as good reason, though not with as much assurance, as by demonstration itself. His business, he knows, is to examine whether the conclusion be justly drawn, not whether it be irresistibly forced upon him. It is enough, if the proof be such as merits his assent, though it should not compel it.

Apply, now, this universal rule of just reasoning to the case of the Gospel. Consider it on the footing of that evidence, which it pretends to offer. If this evidence be weak and inconclusive in itself, let it be rejected. But, if it be sufficient to the purpose for which it is given, why look out for any higher? The pretensions of Christianity are, indeed, very great. It claims to be received by us, as the work and word of God. The proofs of its being such should, no doubt, be adapted to the nature of these pretensions. If, in fact, they be so adapted, all further attestations of its truth, all stronger demonstrations of its divinity (supposing there might be stronger) are, at least, unnecessary: our demands of them are without ground, and without reason: that is, they are clearly not to the purpose of this inquiry. But

II. The impertinence of these demands, is not all. There is good reason to believe, that they are, in themselves, absolutely unfit and IMPROPER to be complied with.

In saying this, I do not only mean that the evidence, such men call for, is so far mistaken as to be really of an inferior sort, and less convincing to a well-informed mind, than that which they reject. This, no doubt, is very frequently the case. It has been shewn in many instances, and even to the conviction of the objector himself, that such circumstances as have been thought most suspicious, such proofs as have appeared the weakest, have upon inquiry turned out, of all others, the strongest and most satisfactory. For example, they who object to the mean instruments, by which the Christian Religion was propagated, are confuted by the Apostle Paul himself; who has shewn that very circumstance to be the clearest proof of its divinity; this method of publishing the Gospel having been purposely chosen, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God[42]. And the same answer will equally serve to many other pretences of the like nature.

But, as I said, my intention is not, at present, to expose the common mistake of preferring a weaker evidence to a stronger. Let it be allowed, that the evidence required is, in fact, the stronger. Still there is reason to think that such evidence was not proper to be given. And I argue, from the nature of the thing; and from the genius of the Gospel.

1. In the nature of the thing it seems not reasonable that a divine revelation should be obtruded upon men by the highest possible evidence. This would be to constrain their assent, not to obtain it: and the very essence of religion consists in its being a willing, as well as reasonable service.

Or, take the matter thus. On supposition that it should please God to address himself to man, it is to be presumed he would treat him as man; that is, in a way, which is suitable to the whole of his nature. But man is not only an intelligent being, that is, capable of discerning the force of evidence, and of being determined by it: he is, also, a moral being, that is, capable of making a right or wrong use of his liberty. Now put the case of an overpowering, irresistible evidence, and his understanding is convinced, indeed; but the will, that other and better half of his composition, the spring of liberty and of virtue, this, with all the energies depending upon it, is untouched, and has no share in the operation. On the other hand, let the evidence submitted to him be such only as may satisfy his reason, if attentively, if modestly, if virtuously employed, and you see the whole man in play: his intellectual powers are considered, and his moral faculties, the faculties of a wise and understanding heart, applied to and exerted.

It seems, then, that, if a Revelation were given to man, it would most probably, and according to the best views we can form of the divine conduct, be given in this way; that is, in such a way, as should make it, at once, the proper object of his faith, and the test, I had almost said the reward, of his merit.

And such, we may observe, is the sense of mankind in other instances of God’s government. Who complains, that the ordinary blessings of Heaven, the conveniences and accommodations of life, are not ready furnished and prepared to his hands? Who does not think it sufficient, to our use and to God’s glory, that we have the powers requisite to prepare them? Why then expect this greatest of God’s blessings, a divine Revelation, to be made cheap in being forced upon us, whether we will or no, by an evidence, which silences reason, rather than employs it; and precludes the exercise of the noblest faculties, with which our nature is invested?

2. Thus, the reason of the thing affords a presumption (I mean, if men will reason at all on such matters), that these high demands in religion are unfit to be complied with. But we shall argue more safely, in the next place, from the genius and declarations of the Gospel.

From the tenour of the Gospel-revelation we learn, that, though a reasonable evidence be afforded of its truth, yet the author and publishers of it were by no means solicitous to force it on the minds of men by an unnecessary and irresistible evidence.

We see this in the conduct of our Lord himself, who refused to gratify the curiosity both of friends and foes by needless explanations[43], or supernumerary miracles[44]. We see it, further, in his general method of speaking by Parables[45]; which are so contrived as to instruct the attentive and willing hearer, but not the prejudiced or indifferent. Nay, when some of his parables were so obscure as that they might seem to require an explanation, he did not always vouchsafe to give it before the people, but reserved the exposition of them for his disciples, in private[46]. To them, only, it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: others, were left to their own interpretation of his Parables[47].

This proceeding of Christ plainly shews that he was not anxious to instruct or convince in that way, which might appear the most direct and cogent. It seems, on the contrary, to have been his choice to afford the strongest proofs of his mission and the clearest views of his doctrine to those, not whose incredulity needed his assistance most, but who, by their good dispositions and moral qualities, deserved it[48]. He thought not fit to cast pearls before swine[49]; and, as contrary as it may be to our forward expectations, it was a rule with him, that he that hath, to him it should be given[50].

That this was the genius of the Gospel, we further learn from the stress, which is laid on Faith. It is everywhere demanded as a previous qualification in the aspirants to this religion; it is everywhere spoken of as the highest moral virtue: a representation, strange and impossible to be accounted for, if men were to be borne down by the weight of evidence only.

But, to put the matter out of all doubt, we have it declared to us in express words, that those converts are the most acceptable to Christ, who receive his religion, on a reasonable, indeed, but inferiour evidence. When the Apostle Thomas expressed his belief, on the evidence of sense, Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed[51].

Now, whatever occasion prophane men may take from this account of Gospel-evidence to calumniate the divine Author of our Faith, as though he relied more on the credulity, than the conviction of his followers; whatever perverse use, I say, some men may be disposed to make of this circumstance; one thing, I suppose, is clear, “That the genius of the Gospel does, in fact, discountenance their high demands of evidence.” So that, taking the Christian religion for what it is (and for such only, the rules of good reasoning oblige us to take it) it is very certain that no man is authorized to expect other or stronger proofs of its divinity than have been given. On the contrary, such proofs, as men account stronger, could only serve to weaken its evidence, and overthrow its pretensions.

III. Lastly, Though no distinct reason could have been opposed to these high expectations in religion, yet common sense would have seen, “That they are, in general, PRESUMPTUOUS AND UNWARRANTABLE.”

For what man, that thinks at all, but must acknowledge that sacred truth, that God’s ways are not as our ways[52]; and that it is the height of mortal folly to prescribe to the Almighty? What man is he that can know the council of God? Or, who can think what the will of the Lord is?—Hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon the earth, and with labour do we find the things that are before us: but the things that are in heaven who hath searched out[53]?

Such passages as these have, I know, been sometimes brought to insult and disgrace Reason, when employed the most soberly, and in her proper office. But I quote them for no such purpose. I mean not to infer from these testimonies, that we are not competent judges of the evidence which is laid before us (for why, then, was it offered?); but, that reason cannot tell us, what evidence it was fit for Heaven to give of its own councils and revelations. We may conjecture, modestly conjecture, without blame. Nay the wisest and best men, and even angels themselves, have a reasonable desire to look into these things: and their speculations, if duly governed, are, no doubt, commendable and useful. But we are not, upon this pretence, to dogmatize on such matters. Much less, may we take upon us to reject a well-attested Revelation, a Revelation, that bears many characteristic marks, many illustrious signatures and impresses of divinity, because this or that circumstance, attending it, does not accord to our narrow views and shallow surmises. In short, men would do well to remember that it is no less a maxim of reason than of Scripture, that the things of God, knoweth no man but the Spirit of God[54]: a maxim, we should never lose sight of, a moment, in our religious inquiries.

But this, though an important consideration, is a common one, and I pursue it no farther. Let it suffice to have shewn, “That when, in matters of religion, men indulge themselves in fancying what evidence would have been most convincing to them, and then erect such fancies into expectations, they are, at best, employed very idly:”

“That the worthiest apprehensions, we can frame of the divine wisdom, and both the genius and letter of the Christian religion, discountenance these expectations, as improper and unreasonable to be complied with:”

And, “that, from the slightest acquaintance with ourselves, we must needs confess them to be presumptuous.”

The USE to be made of the whole is, that men think soberly, as they ought to think[55]; and that, if ever their restless curiosity, or some worse principle, impells them to make the demand in the text, shew us the Father, they repress the rising folly by this just reflexion, that they have no right, in their sense of the word, to see the Father.

Not but his infinite goodness hath vouchsafed to unveil himself so far, as is abundantly sufficient to our conviction. But then we must be content to see him in that light, in which he has been graciously pleased to shew himself, not in that unapproachable light[56] in which our madness requires to have him shewn to us.

The evidences of Christianity are not dispensed with a penurious hand: but they lie dispersed in a very wide compass. They result from an infinite number of considerations, each of which has its weight, and all together such moment, as may be, but is not easily resisted. To collect and estimate these, much labour and patience is to be endured; great parts of learning and genius are required; above all, an upright and pure mind is demanded. If, conscious of our little worth or ability, we find ourselves not equal to this task, let us adore in silence, and with that humility which becomes us. To call out for light, when we have enough to serve our purpose, is indeed foolish: but to make this noisy demand, when we have previously blinded our eyes, or have resolved to keep them shut, is something more than folly.

After all, there is one way, in which the meanest of us may be indulged in the high privilege of SEEING the Father, at least, in the express image of his Son. It is, by keeping the commandments. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, says our Lord himself, I will love him, and will MANIFEST myself to him[57]. In other words, he will see and acknowledge the truth of our divine religion.

SERMON VII.
PREACHED IN THE YEAR 1771.

St. James, iv. 1.

From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

Interpreters have observed, that these questions refer to the state of things, which then took place among the Jews, when this epistle was addressed to them. For, about that time, they had grievous wars and fightings among themselves; every city, and every family, almost, of this devoted people, not only in Judea, but in many other countries, through which they were scattered abroad, being miserably distracted and torn asunder by civil and domestic factions.

This application, then, of the Apostle’s words to the Jews of his own time, seems a just one. But we need look no further for a comment upon them, than to that hostile spirit, which too much prevails, at all times, and under all circumstances, even among Christians themselves.

The root of this bitterness, we are told, is in the lusts, that war in our members: that is, there is, first, an insurrection of our carnal appetites against the law of our minds; and, then, the contagion spreads over families, neighbourhoods, and societies; over all those, in short, with whom we have any concern, till the whole world, sometimes, becomes a general scene of contention and disorder.

For, ask the princes of this world, what prompts them to disturb the peace of other states, and to involve their subjects in all the horrors of war; and their answer, if they deign to give one, and if it be ingenuous, must, commonly, be, their lust of conquest and dominion. Ask the servants of those princes, what splits them into parties and factions; and they can hardly avoid answering, or we can answer for them, their lust of wealth and power. Ask the people, at large, and under whatever denomination, what occasions their contempt of authority, their disobedience to magistrates, their transgressions of law, their cabals and tumults, their hatred, defamation, and persecution of each other; and charity herself, for the most part, can dictate no other reply for them to this question, than that they are excited to all these excesses by the lust of riot and misrule, or, of, what they call, LIBERTY.

But there is no end of pursuing this subject in all its applications to particular instances. What we have most reason to lament, is, that Christians not only fight with each other, at the instigation of their lusts, for their own carnal and corrupt ends; but that they make the very means, which God has appointed to compose these differences, the instruments of their animosity, and become outrageous in their hostile treatment of each other, by the perversion of those principles, which were intended to be its restraint. For if any thing could appease this tumult among men, what more likely to do it, than the administration of civil justice, and the sacred institutions of religion? Yet, are even these provisions of divine and human wisdom, for the support of peace and good order, defeated by our restless and ingenious passions; and we contrive, to make Religion and Law themselves, subservient to the increase of that contention, which they tend so naturally to keep out of the world.

As this abuse, which inverts the order of things, and turns the medicine of life into a deadly poison—as this abuse, I say, can never be enough exposed; let me represent to you some part of the evils, which this monstrous misuse of Religion and Civil Justice has brought upon mankind; as the last, and most striking effort of these malignant lusts, from which, according to the holy Apostle, all our violations of peace and charity are derived.

And, FIRST, of the mischiefs, arising, from misapplied Religion.

It were an ample field, this, should I undertake to follow the ecclesiastical historian in all the abuses, which he so largely displays. But my design is to open the fountains; to point, only, to the general causes, from which those abuses have flowed. And the chief of these causes will not be overlooked, if we consider that Christianity has been corrupted by superstition, by policy, and by sophistry: for, in each of these ways, the lusts. of men have found free scope for their activity; and have produced all those endless discords and animosities, which have dishonoured the Christian world.

1. Superstition began very early to make cruel inroads into the religion of Jesus: first, by debasing its free spirit with the servility of Jewish observances; next, in adulterating its simple genius by the pomp of pagan ceremonies; and, afterwards, through a long course of dark and barbarous ages, in disfiguring its reasonable service[58] by every whimsy, which a gloomy or disturbed imagination could suggest.

The lusts of men gave birth to these several perversions. The obstinate pride of the Jewish Christian was flattered in retaining the abrogated ritual of the Law: the pagan proselyte gratified his vanity, and love of splendor in religious ministrations, by dressing out Christianity in all the paint and pageantry of his ancient worship: and the miserable monk soothed his fears, or indulged his spite, in busying himself with I know not what uncommanded and frivolous expiations, or in torturing others with the rigours of a fruitless penance.

From these rank passions, sprung up wars in abundance among Christians. The Apostles themselves could not prevent their followers from fighting with each other, in the cause of circumcision. The superstition of days[59], and of images[60], grew so fierce, that the whole Christian world was, at different times, thrown into convulsions by it. And the dreams of monkery excited every where the most implacable feuds; which had, commonly, no higher object, than the credit of their several Rules, or the honour of their Patron-saints.

2. When superstition had thus set the world on fire, a godless Policy struck in, to encrease the combustion.

The Christian religion, which had TRUTH for its object, could not but require an assent from its professors to the doctrines, it revealed; and, having God for its author, it, of course, exacted a compliance with the few ritual observances, which he saw fit to ordain. But the wantonness, or weakness, of the human mind, introducing a different interpretation of those doctrines, and a different ministration of those rites, the policy of princes would not condescend to tolerate such unavoidable differences, but would inforce a rigid uniformity both of sentiment and ceremony, as most conducive, in their ideas, to the quiet and stability of their government.

Again: the honour of prelates and churches seemed to be concerned in all questions concerning place and jurisdiction; and, when these questions arose, was to be maintained by every artifice, which an interested and secular wisdom could contrive.

The lust of dominion, was plainly at the bottom of these infernal machinations; and the fruit, it produced, was the most bloody and unrelenting wars, massacres, and persecutions; with which the annals of mankind are polluted and disgraced. But,

3. To work up these two pests of humanity, superstition, and intolerance, to all the fury, of which they are capable, unblessed Science and perverted Reason lent their aid.

For, the pride of knowledge begot innumerable portentous heresies: which not only corrupted the divine religion of Jesus (obnoxious to some taint from the impure touch of human reason, because divine), but envenomed the hearts of its professors, against each other, by infusing into them a bitter spirit of altercation and dispute.

In these several ways, then, and from these causes, has our holy religion been abused. The lusts of men have turned the Gospel of peace itself into an instrument of war: a misadventure, which could not have taken place, had Christians but recollected and practised one single precept of their master—Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls[61].

But the perversity of man could not be brought to learn this salutary lesson; and so has fulfilled that memorable saying of our Lord, who, foreseeing what abuses would hereafter be made of his charitable system, declared of himself—I came not to send peace, but a sword[62]. This prediction, at least, the enemies of our faith are ready enough to tell us, has been amply verified, in the event. It has been so: it was therefore inspired, because it was to be fulfilled. But let them remember, withall, that not the genius of the Gospel, but man’s incorrigible passions, acting in defiance of it, have given to this prophecy its entire completion.

I come now to represent to you,

II. In the second place, how the lusts of men have perverted Civil Justice, as well as Religion, into an instrument of contention and hate.

The object of all civil, or municipal laws, is the conservation of private peace, in the equal protection they afford to the property and persons of men. Yet, how often have they been employed to other purposes, by those, who administer the Laws; and by those, for whose sake they are administered!

1. In reading the history of mankind, one cannot but observe, with indignation, how frequently the magistrate himself has turned the Law, by which he governs, into an engine of oppression: sometimes, directing it against the liberties of the state; and sometimes, against the private rights of individuals. It were a small matter, perhaps, if he only took advantage of a severe law, or drew over an ambiguous one, to countenance his iniquitous purposes. But how oft has he embittered the mildest, or tortured the plainest laws, by malignant glosses and strained interpretations! gratifying, in both ways, his revenge, his avarice, or his ambition; yet still in the forms of Law, and under the mantle, as it were of public justice!

Such abuses there have been in most states, and, it may be, in our own. God forbid, that, standing in this place, I should accept the persons of men, or give flattering titles unto any[63]. But truth obliges me to say, that there is, now, no colour for these complaints. The administration of justice, on the part of the Magistrate, is so pure, as to be the glory of the age, in which we live. The abuses all arise from another quarter; and the contentious spirit is kept alive and propagated by the lusts of private men. And what renders their iniquity without excuse, is, that the very equity of those forms, in which our laws are administered, is made the occasion of introducing all these corruptions.

2. To come to a detail on this subject, might be thought improper. Let me paint to you, then, in very general terms, the disorders that spring from this perversion of Law; and, to do it with advantage, let me employ the expressive words of an ancient Pagan writer.

The Roman governors of provinces, it is well known, had their times for the more solemn administration of civil justice. Suppose, then, one of these governors to have fixed his residence in the capital of an Asiatic province, to have appointed a day for this solemnity, and, with his Lictors, and other ensigns of authority about him, to be now seated in the forum, or public place of the city; and consider, if the following representation of an indifferent by-stander be not natural and instructive.

“See,” says the eloquent writer[64], whose words I only translate, “see that vast and mixt multitude assembled together before you. You ask, what has occasioned this mighty concourse of people. Are they met to sacrifice to their country Gods, and to communicate with each other in the sacred offices of their religion? Are they going to offer the Lydian first-fruits to the Ascræan Jupiter? or, are they assembled in such numbers to celebrate the rites of Bacchus, with the usual festivity? Alas, no. Neither pious gratitude, nor festal joy, inspires them. One fierce unfriendly passion only prevails; whose epidemic rage has stirred up all Asia, and, as returning with redoubled force on this stated anniversary, has driven these frantic crowds to the forum; where they are going to engage in law-suits with each other, before the Judges. An infinite number of causes, like so many confluent streams, rush together, in one common tide, to the same tribunal. The passions of the contending parties are all on fire; and the end of this curious conflict is, the ruin of themselves and others. What fevers, what calentures, what adust temperament of the body, or overflow of its vicious humours, is to be compared to this plague of the distempered mind? Were you to interrogate each cause (in the manner you examine a witness) as it appears before this tribunal, and ask, WHENCE IT CAME? the answer would be, an obstinate and self-willed spirit produced this; a bitter rage of contention, that; and a lust of revenge and injustice, another.”

It is not to be doubted, that this rage of the contending parties was inflamed, in those times, by mercenary agents and venal orators; by men, who employed every fetch of cunning, and every artifice of chicane, to perplex the clearest laws, to retard the decision of the plainest cases, and to elude the sentence of the ablest judges. Without some such management as this, the passions of the litigants could not have been kept up in such heat and fury, but must gradually have cooled, and died away of themselves. Add this, then, to the other features, so well delineated, and you will have the picture of ancient litigation complete.

And what think we, now, of this picture? Is there truth and nature in it? Are we at all concerned in this representation; and do we discover any resemblance to it in what is passing elsewhere, I mean in modern times, and even in Christian societies? If we do, let us acknowledge with honesty, but indeed with double shame, that, like the Pagans of old, we have the art to pervert the best things to the worst purposes; and that the lusts of men are still predominant over the wisest and most beneficent institutions of civil justice.

Indeed, as to ourselves, the mild and equitable spirit of our laws might be enough, one would think, to inspire another temper: but when we further consider the divine spirit of the Gospel, by which we pretend to be governed, and the end of which is charity, our prodigious abuse of both must needs cover us with confusion.

The instruction, then, from what has been said, is this: That, since, as St. James observes, all our wars and fightings with each other proceed only from our lusts, and since these have even prevailed to that degree as to corrupt the two best gifts, which God, in his mercy, ever bestowed on mankind, that is, to make Religion and Law subservient to our bitter animosities; since all this, I say, has been made appear in the preceding comment on the sacred text, it becomes us, severally, to consider what our part has been in the disordered scene, now set before us: what care we have taken to check those unruly passions, which are so apt, by indulgence, to tyrannize over us; and, if this care has been less than it ought to have been, what may be the consequence of our neglect. We should, in a word, take heed, how we bite and devour one another; not only, as the Apostle admonishes, that we be not consumed one of another; but lest, in the end, we incur the chastisement of that Law, we have so industriously perverted, and the still sorer chastisement of that Religion, we have so impiously abused.

SERMON VIII.
PREACHED APRIL 29, 1770.

1 Tim. i. 5.

The end of the Commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.

The Apostle, in the preceding verse, had warned Timothy against giving heed to fables and endless genealogies: by Fables, meaning certain Jewish fictions and traditions applied to the explication of theological questions, and not unlike the tales of the pagan mythologists, contrived by them to cover the monstrous stories of their Gods; and, by Genealogies, the derivation of Angelic and Spiritual natures[65], according to a fantastic system, invented by the Oriental philosophers, and thence adopted by some of the Grecian Sects. These fables and genealogies (by which the Jewish and Pagan converts to Christianity had much adulterated the faith of the Gospel) the Apostle sets himself to expose and reprobate, as producing nothing but curious and fruitless disputations; being indeed, as he calls them, endless, or interminable[66]; because, having no foundation in the revealed word of God, they were drawn out, varied, and multiplied at pleasure by those, who delighted in such fanatical visions.

Then follows the text.—The end of the Commandment, is Charity: out of a PURE HEART: and of a GOOD CONSCIENCE; and of FAITH UNFEIGNED—As if the Apostle had said, “I have cautioned you against this pernicious folly: but, if ye must needs deal in the way of Mythology and Genealogy, I will tell you how ye may employ your ingenuity to more advantage. Take Christian Charity, for your theme: mythologize that capital Grace of your profession; or, deduce the parentage of it, according to the steps, which I will point out to you. For it springs immediately out of a pure heart; which, itself, is derived from a good conscience; as that, again, is the genuine offspring or emanation of faith unfeigned. In this way, ye may gratify your mythologic or genealogical vein, innocently and usefully[67]; for ye may learn yourselves, and teach others, how to acquire and perfect that character, which is the great object of your religion, and the end of the Commandment.”

Let us, then, if you please, attend to this genealogical deduction of the learned Apostle; and see, if the descent of Christian charity be not truly and properly investigated by him.

I. Charity, says he, is out of a pure heart: that is, it proceeds from a heart, free from the habits of sin, and unpolluted by corrupt affections.

To see with what propriety, the Apostle makes a pure heart the parent of charity, we are to reflect, that this benevolent temper, which inclines us to wish and do well to others, is the proper growth and produce, indeed, of the human mind, but of the human mind in its native and original integrity. To provide effectually for the maintenance of the social virtues, it hath pleased God to implant in man, not only the power of reason, which enables him to see the connexion between his own happiness and that of others, but also certain instincts and propensities, which make him feel it, and, without reflexion, incline him to take part in foreign interests. For, among the other wonders of our make, this is one, that we are so formed as, whether we will or no, to rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep[68]. But now this sympathetic tenderness, which nature hath put into our hearts for the concerns of each other, may be much impaired by habitual neglect, or selfish gratifications. If, instead of listening to those calls of nature, which, on the entrance into life, are incessantly, but gently, urging us to acts of generosity, we turn a deaf ear to them, and, charmed by the suggestions of self-love, yield up ourselves to the dominion of the grosser appetite, it cannot be but that the love of others, however natural to us, must decline, and become, at length, a feeble motive to action; or, which amounts to the same thing, be constantly overpowered by the undue prevalence of other principles. Thus we may see, how ambition, avarice, sensuality, or any other of the more selfish passions, tends directly, by indulgence, to obstruct the growth of charity; and how favourable an uncorrupt mind is to the production and maturity of this divine virtue.

But, further, the impurities of the heart do not only hinder the exertions of benevolence; they have even a worse effect, they cause us to pervert and misapply it. It is not, perhaps, so easy a matter, as some imagine, to divest ourselves of all attachment to the interest of our fellow-creatures. But, by a long misuse of our faculties, we may come in time to mistake the objects of true interest; and so be carried, by the motives of benevolence itself, to do irreparable mischief to those we would most befriend and oblige. This seems to be the case of those most abandoned of all sinners, who take pains to corrupt others, and not only do wicked things themselves, but have pleasure in those who do them[69]. All that can be said for these unhappy victims of their own lusts, is, that their perverted benevolence prompts them to encourage others in that course of life, from which, if it were rightly exercised, they would endeavour, with all their power, to divert them.

So necessary it is, that charity should be out of a pure heart! It is polluted in its very birth, unless it proceed from an honest mind: it is spurious and illegitimate, if it be not so descended.

II. The next step in this line of moral ancestry, is a GOOD CONSCIENCE: which phrase is not to be taken here in the negative sense, and as equivalent only to a pure heart; but as expressing a further, a positive degree of goodness. For so we find it explained elsewhere; having, says St. Peter, a GOOD CONSCIENCE, that whereas they speak evil of you, as EVIL DOERS, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your GOOD CONVERSATION in Christ Jesus: for it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for WELL DOING, than for evil doing[70]. Whence, by a good conscience, we are authorized to understand a mind, conscious to itself of beneficent actions. And thus the Apostle’s intention will be, to insinuate to us, that, to be free from depraved affections, we must be actively virtuous; and that we must be zealous in good works, if we would attain to that purity of heart, which is proper to beget the genuine virtue of Christian charity.

For, we may conceive of the matter, thus. A good conscience, or a mind enured to right action, is most likely, and best enabled, to shake off all corrupt partialities; and, as being intent on the strenuous exercise of its duty, in particular instances, to acquire, in the end, that tone of virtue, which strengthens, at once, and refines the affections, till they expand themselves into an universal good-will. Thus we see that, without this moral discipline, we should scarce possess, or not long retain, a pure heart; and that the heart, if pure, would yet be inert and sluggish, and unapt to entertain that prompt and ready benevolence, which true charity implies.

So that an active practical virtue, as serving both to purify and invigorate the kind affections, has deservedly a place given to it in this lineal descent of Christian love. But,

III. The Apostle rises higher yet in this genealogical scale of charity, and acquaints us that a good conscience, or a course of active positive virtue, is not properly and lawfully descended, unless it proceed from a FAITH UNFEIGNED, that is, a sincere undissembled belief of the Christian religion.

And the reason is plain. For there is no dependance on virtuous practice; we cannot expect that it should either be steady, or lasting, unless the principle, from which it flows, be something nobler and more efficacious, than considerations taken from the beauty, propriety, and usefulness of virtue itself. Our active powers have need to be sustained and strengthened by energies of a higher kind, than those which mere philosophy supplies. We shall neither be able to bear up against the difficulties of a good life, nor to stand out against the temptations, which an evil world is always ready to throw in our way, but by placing a firm trust on the promises of God, and by keeping our minds fixed on the glorious hopes and assurances of the Gospel. And experience may satisfy us, that practical virtue has no stability or consistency, without these supports.

Besides, considering a good conscience, or a moral practical conduct, with an eye to its influence on a pure heart, till it issue in complete charity, we cannot but see how the Christian faith is calculated to direct its progress, and secure the great end proposed. For the whole system of our divine religion, which hath its foundation in grace; its precepts, which breathe nothing but love and amity; its doctrines, which only present to us, under different views, the transcendent goodness of God in the great work of redemption; its history, which records the most engaging instances of active benevolence; all this cannot but exceedingly inspirit our affections, and carry them out in a vigorous and uniform prosecution of the subordinate means, which are to produce that last perfection of our nature, a pure and permanent love of mankind. For at every step we cannot but see the end of the commandment, so perpetually held out to us, and derive a fresh inducement from faith, to accomplish and obtain it.

Indeed, to produce this effect, our faith, as the Apostle adds, must be UNFEIGNED: that is, it must be nourished and intimately rooted in the heart; we must not only yield a general assent to the sacred truths of our religion, we must embrace them with earnestness and zeal, we must rely upon them with an unshaken confidence and resolution. But all this will be no difficulty to those who derive their faith from its proper source, that is, who make a diligent study of the holy scriptures: where only we learn what the true faith (which will ever be most friendly to virtue) is; and whence we shall best derive those motives and considerations, which are proper to excite and fortify this principle in us.

And thus, that Charity, which a pure mind gives the liberty of exerting, and which a good conscience manifests and at the same time improves, will, further, be so sublimed and perfected by the influence of divine faith, as will render it the sovereign guide of life, and the pride and ornament of humanity.

Or, to place the descent of Charity, in its true and natural order, it must spring, first, from an unfeigned faith in the Gospel of Jesus: that faith must then produce, and shew itself in, a good conscience: and that conscience must be thoroughly purged from all selfish and disorderly affections: whence, lastly, the celestial offspring of Charity has its birth, and comes forth in all the purity and integrity of its nature.

From this lineage of Christian Charity, thus deduced, many instructive lessons may be drawn. We may learn to distinguish the true and genuine, from pretended Charity: we have, hence, the surest way of discerning the spirits of other men, and of trying our own: we may correct some popular mistakes concerning the virtue of charity; and shall best comprehend the force and significancy of the several commendations, which the inspired writers, in many places, and in very general terms, bestow upon it.

Let me conclude this discourse with an instance of such instruction, respecting each of those heads, which the order of the text hath afforded the opportunity of considering.

And, first, from the necessity of a PURE HEART, we are instructed what to think of the benevolence of those men, who, though enslaved to their own selfish passions, are seldom the most backward to make large pretences to this virtue. But, be their pretences what they will, we know with certainty, that, if the heart be impure, its charity must be defective. It must, of course, be weak and partial; confined in its views, and languid in its operations; in a word, a faint and powerless quality, and not that generous, diffusive, universal principle, which alone deserves the exalted name of Charity.

We conclude, also, on the same grounds, that the hatred of vice is no breach of Christian charity. This charity is required to flow from a pure heart. But there is not in nature a stronger antipathy, than between purity, and impurity. So that we might as well expect light and darkness, heat and cold, to associate, as spotless virtue not to take offence at its opposite. I know, indeed, that the hatred due to the vices of men, is too easily transferred to their persons. But that charity, which is lineally descended from faith, will see to make a difference between them; and while it feels a quick resentment against sin, will conceive, nay will, by that very resentment, demonstrate, a tender concern for sinners, for whom Christ died.

Secondly, from the rank, which a GOOD CONSCIENCE holds in this family of love, we are admonished to avoid the mistake of those, who are inclined to rest in negative virtue, as the end of the commandment; and who account their charity full and complete, when it keeps them only from intending, or doing mischief to others. The Apostle, on the contrary, gives us to understand, that its descent is irregular, if it be not allied to active positive virtue; such as takes a pleasure in kind offices, is zealous to promote the welfare of others, and is fertile in good works. And this conclusion is the more necessary to be inforced upon us, since, in a world like this, where vice is sure to be active enough, the interests of society will not permit that Charity should be idle.

Lastly, from the lineal descent of Charity from FAITH, we must needs infer, that infidelity is not a matter of that indifference to social life, which many careless persons suppose it to be. It is the glory of our faith, that it terminates in charity. Every article of our creed is a fresh incitement to good works: in so much that, he who understands his religion most perfectly, and is most firmly persuaded of it, can scarce fail of approving himself the best man, as well as the best Christian. And this, again, is a consideration, which should affect all those who profess to have any concern for the interests of society and moral virtue.

Thus it appears, how instructive the doctrine of the text is, and how usefully, as well as elegantly, the Apostle sets before us, in this short genealogical table, the proper ancestry of Charity: in which Faith, as the ultimate progenitor, begets an active virtue; and that, impregnating the heart with pure affections, produces at length this divine offspring of Christian love.

If we had found this mythological fiction in Xenophon or Plato, we should have much admired the instruction conveyed in it. Let it not abate our reverence for this moral lesson, that it comes from an Apostle of Jesus, and, if not dressed out in the charms of human eloquence, has all the authority of truth and divine inspiration to recommend it to us.

SERMON IX.
PREACHED NOVEMBER 9, 1766.

Rom. xii. 10.

—In honour preferring one another.

It is much to the honour of the inspired writers, because it shews them to be no enthusiasts, that, with all their zeal for the revealed doctrines of the Gospel, they never forget or overlook the common duties of humanity; those duties, which Reason itself, a prior Revelation, had made known to the wiser part of mankind.

Nay, which is more remarkable, they sometimes condescend to enforce what are called the lesser moralities[71]; that is, those inferiour duties, which, not being of absolute necessity to the support of human society, are frequently overlooked by other moralists, and yet, as contributing very much to the comfortable enjoyment of it, are of real moment, and deserve a suitable regard.

The text is an instance of this sort—in honour preferring one another—the NATURE, and GROUND, and right APPLICATION, of which duty, it is my present purpose to explain.

1. The general NATURE of this virtue consists in a disposition to express our good will to others by exteriour testimonies of respect; to consult the credit and honour of those we converse with, though at some expence of our own vanity and self-love. It implies a readiness to prevent them in the customary decencies of conversation; a facility to give way to their reasonable pretensions, and even to abate something of our own just rights. It requires us to suppress our petulant claims of superiority; to decline all frivolous contests and petty rivalries; to moderate our own demands of pre-eminence and priority; and, in a word, to please others, rather than ourselves.

It is an easy, social, conciliating virtue; a virtue made up of humility and benevolence; the former, inclining us not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought; and the latter, to give our Christian brother an innocent satisfaction when we can.

And our obligation to the practice of this virtue is FOUNDED,

II. On the clearest reasons, taken both from the nature of man, and the genius of our holy Religion.

And, FIRST, from the nature of man.

Among the various principles, some of them, in appearance, discordant and contradictory, which constitute our common nature, one of the first to take our attention is, “A conscious sense of dignity;” an opinion of self-consequence, which mixes itself with all our thoughts and deliberations; prompting us to entertain lofty sentiments of our own worth, and aspiring to something like superiority and dominion over other men. This principle, which appears very early, and is strongest in the more generous dispositions, is highly necessary to a being formed for virtuous action; and naturally leads to the exertion of such qualities as are proper to benefit society, as well as to gain that ascendency in it, to which we pretend. It is the spring, indeed, of every commendable emulation; puts in act all our better and nobler faculties; and gives nerves to that labor and industry, by which every worthy accomplishment is attained.

But now this principle (so natural and useful), when it is not checked by others, but is suffered to take the lead and predominate on all occasions, undisciplined and uncontrolled, easily grows into a very offensive and hurtful quality: offensive, because it is now exerted to the humiliation of every other, who is actuated by the same principle; and hurtful, because, in this undue degree, it counteracts the very purpose, the good of human society, for which it was designed.

This quality we know by the name of Pride. The other moderate degree of self-esteem, which is allowable and virtuous, seems not (I suppose, from its rare appearance under that form) to have acquired in our language a distinct name.

To Pride, then, the pernicious and too common issue of self-love, it became necessary, that some other principle should be opposed. And such a principle, as is proper to correct the malignity of pride, we find in that philanthropy, which, by an instinct of the same common nature, disposeth us to consult the happiness, and to conciliate to ourselves the good will and affection, of mankind. This benevolent movement of the mind is, further, quickened by the mutual interest all men have in the exercise of it. For Pride is disarmed by submission; and, by receding from our own pretensions, we take the most likely way to moderate those of other men. Thus, the generous affections are kept in play; reciprocal civilities are maintained; and, by the habit of each preferring other, which prudence would advise, if instinct did not inspire, the peace of society is preserved, its joy encreased, and even our vanity, so far as it is a just and natural affection, gratified and indulged.

The reason of the Apostolic precept is, then, laid deep in the constitution of human nature; which is so wonderfully formed, that its perfection requires the reconciliation of contrary qualities; and its happiness results from making benevolence itself subservient to self-love.

2. If, from the philosophic consideration of man, we turn to the genius of the Gospel, we shall there find this conclusion of natural reason strengthened and confirmed by evangelical motives.

Benevolence, which, in the Gospel, takes the name of Charity, hath a larger range in this new dispensation, than in that of nature. The doctrine, and still more the example, of Jesus, extends the duty of humility and self-denial; requires us to make ampler sacrifices of self-love, and to give higher demonstrations of good-will to others, than mere reason could well demand or enforce. He, that was so far from seeking his own, that he emptied himself of all his glory, and stooped from heaven to earth, for the sake of man, hath a right to expect, from his followers, a more than ordinary effort to conform to so divine a precedent, a peculiar attention to the mutual benefits and concerns of each other. It is but little that we keep within some decent bounds our aspiring tempers and inclinations: we are now to subject ourselves to our Christian brethren; to renounce even our innocent and lawful pretensions; and to forego every natural gratification, when the purposes of Christian Charity call us to this arduous task.

For the Gospel, it is to be observed, has taken us out of the loose and general relation of men, and has bound us together in the closer and more endearing tie of Brethren: it exalts the good-will, we were obliged to bear to the species, into the affection, which consanguinity inspires for the individuals of a private family. The Apostle, therefore, in the words preceding the text, bids us—be kindly affectioned one to another with BROTHERLY LOVE—not, with the love, that unites one man with another[72], which is the highest pretension of mere morality; but with the love, that knits together natural brethren[73], which is the proper boast and character of evangelical love. The words of the original have a peculiar energy[74]. They express that instinctive warmth of affection, which nature puts into our hearts for our nearest kindred, such as communicate with us by the participation of one common blood.

So that the same compliances, we should make with their inclinations, the same preference, we should give to their humour and interest above our own, should now be extended and exercised towards all Christians; and that principle of an ardent affection, by which we are led to make the most chearful condescensions to our natural brother, should work in us the same generous consideration of our spiritual brother, for whom Christ died.

Having explained the nature of this duty, and the grounds, both in reason and religion, on which it rests, it now remains,

III. To provide for the RIGHT APPLICATION of it in practice. And here, in truth, the whole difficulty lies.