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.
Wherefore then serveth the Law?
When the Apostle Paul had proved, in his Epistle to the21Romans, 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 Jew22?
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 Promise23; 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 Christ24?
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 all25; that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself26—that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world27; 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 Christ28: 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 believe29.
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 Son30.
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 believing31. 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 Christ32; 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 Jesus33. 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 day34.” 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 them35.
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 us36.
Philip saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Our Lord, being now about to depart out of the world37, 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 him38; 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 you39. 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 him40. 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 him41.
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 God42. 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 explanations43, or supernumerary miracles44. We see it, further, in his general method of speaking by Parables45; 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 private46. To them, only, it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: others, were left to their own interpretation of his Parables47.
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 it48. He thought not fit to cast pearls before swine49; 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 given50.
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 believed51.
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 ways52; 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 out53?
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 God54: 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 think55; 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 light56 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 him57. In other words, he will see and acknowledge the truth of our divine religion.
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 service58 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 days59, and of images60, 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 souls61.
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 sword62. 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.