Part 2

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.”