And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
There were two things, I observed, very remarkable in the conduct of our blessed Saviour towards the Jews. One was, that he chose to instruct the more ignorant and uninformed of them, in the obscure way of parable: The other, that he wrought but few miracles for the conviction of such of them as were incredulous and unbelieving.
These two circumstances may be thought strange; because the less informed the people were to whom he addressed himself, the more need there seems to have been of the plainest instruction; and the less disposed they were to believe in him, the greater necessity we may think there was for subduing their unbelief by the force of miracles. Yet the conduct of Jesus was not according to these expectations, in either instance; and has accordingly furnished the occasion of TWO corresponding objections to his divine character and mission.
To the former of these objections, that which respects his way of speaking by parables, I have already replied in a distinct discourse on that subject. The latter, which respects his way of working miracles, I now propose to consider.
The text, you see, points out the subject, and confines me to it. Jesus, in discharge of his general office, and from a principle, as we may suppose, of private affection, went into his own country, that is, to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, with the intention of preaching the Gospel there, and of giving the people of that place the proper proofs of his authority and mission. Accordingly, the sacred historian tells us, he taught them in their synagogue; And we know, besides, that he wrought some miracles; for the people were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this WISDOM, and these MIGHTY WORKS?
They were the more astonished, because Jesus was no stranger to them; and the rest of his family, people of an obscure condition, then lived among them. They knew him only under the idea of a Carpenter’s Son, and they had observed perhaps nothing extraordinary him; or, if they had, this very circumstance, as is not uncommon among neighbours and countrymen, might have infused some jealousy and dislike of him. Be that as it will, their prejudices against him were extreme, and they expressed them in the most contemptuous manner. Is not this, say they, the Carpenter’s Son? Is not his Mother called Mary? and his Brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his Sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. To these disparaging questions, which easily overpowered the evidence of conviction even from their own senses, Jesus only replied, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And then the text follows, which says, And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
This is the FACT: And the question upon it, is, Why Jesus forebore to work miracles among these people, because they did not believe in him?
Before I reply distinctly to this question, permit me to premise two general observations; one, on the use of miracles, considered in themselves; and the other, on the use of miracles, as applied to the Christian dispensation.
First, then, I observe, that, a miracle being, for the time, an alteration or suspension of the laws of nature, our best ideas of the divine attributes lead us to conclude, that this violence on his own plan of government is only exerted for some very important end, and will be exerted no farther, nor oftener, than is necessary to that end. It is true, it may be difficult for us to judge, in many cases, of that importance, and of that necessity; but unless both be very apparent to us, in no case, can we be authorized to require or even expect, a continuance or repetition, much less a multiplication of these miraculous exertions. To judge otherwise on this subject, would be to charge God foolishly, and, in effect, to blaspheme his wisdom.
Secondly, I observe, that the use of miracles, as applied to the Christian dispensation, is to give credit to the character and pretensions of Jesus. It is supposed in this argument that miracles, duly circumstanced and fully attested, are sufficient to this purpose; but there is no reason to suppose that more or greater will be wrought, than that purpose requires.
These things being premised, to the question, Why Jesus did not many miracles, before the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth, I reply directly by saying
I. In the first place, because such a display of his power was not necessary to their conviction. I mean not to say at present, that more or greater miracles would not have convinced them (though it be very unlikely, that they would), but that they were not necessary to the end proposed by them, which was to afford such an attestation to the character of Jesus as might be a reasonable and, in itself, a sufficient ground of their conviction. More than this the Jews had no right to expect. And less than this was not offered: For when it is said, that Jesus did not many miracles at Nazareth, it is implied that he did some; and thus much they confess themselves in asking, whence hath this man these mighty works?
Now some miracles, nay one single miracle, seen and confessed as such, was a reasonable ground of conviction. More therefore could not be esteemed necessary, that is, were not required to furnish the fit and proper means of such conviction. Without doubt, God, if he had been so pleased, might have shattered and confounded all the elements, and have driven the men of Nazareth, and even the Jewish Sanhedrim itself, by the force and terror of his almighty power, into an unwilling acknowledgment of his Son, Jesus. But this is not the way in which he treats his reasonable creatures, even when he exceeds the ordinary methods of his providence. He does that which is simply fit and right, in respect of the end he has in view, and leaves the rest to ourselves. This, as far as we know, is the universal mode of God’s government, and as far as we can judge, is the most worthy of him.
Still, it will be said, though Jesus was not obliged to do more for the conviction of these unbelievers, though more or greater miracles could not strictly be required of him, yet so limited a display of his power on such an occasion seemed penurious, and even unkind. A little more zeal, and some supernumerary wonders, might have better expressed his concern for his unhappy countrymen. I reply then,
II. In the second place, that as more or greater miracles were not necessary to the end of giving a just proof of his mission, so they were most probably not expedient to any other good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful and pernicious to his unbelieving countrymen.
We have reason to conclude thus, if we consider that the same prejudices, which obstructed their conviction from some confessed miracles, would not have given way to more. We have an example in the other unbelieving Jews, especially in the rulers of that people, who, the more and greater miracles they saw performed by Jesus, were the more hardened in their unbelief, and the more exasperated against him. They even give it as a reason for their vindictive prosecution of him, that he did, and was doing many miracles[149].
Taking the matter then in this light, what other effect could a waste of miracles have had, but to heap guilt and vengeance upon their heads? By leaving these perverse people to themselves, perhaps their prejudices might subside, and they might yield in time to the evidence they already had, or they might submit to other evidence, which they should collect for themselves hereafter. To have irritated their prejudices, now, by further miracles, might have fixed them absolutely in unbelief.
This conclusion becomes the more probable, if we admit the pretensions of Jesus: For then he may be supposed to have certainly foreseen the present impracticability of converting these men, and to have restrained his power before them, on that account. But I am now arguing with those, who make this conduct an objection to his pretensions. I offer it therefore as a conclusion only very probable from the nature of the thing, that his not doing many miracles before his unbelieving countrymen, was, among other motives, from a principle of mercy and kindness to them. At least, the contrary, I think, cannot be affirmed with any shew or colour of reason.
But whatever kindness our Lord might have for these men, his continuing to work more miracles among them, under the present circumstances, would have been improper, because
III. In the next place (and this is my third answer to the objection) this conduct would have opposed, and tended directly to defeat, the general end and success of his ministry.
The proper END of his ministry was to preach salvation to the Jews, and to give them such evidence of his being the Messiah, as was sufficient to their conviction. When he had done this in one place, if no very important considerations induced his longer stay, he was to proceed to another. This was so essential a part of his office, that it seems not to have been forgotten, even when there was no peculiar complaint of unbelief, in those with whom he had resided. For when the people of another place, of more faith, as it should seem, came to him, and would have stayed him, that he should not depart from them, He refused to comply with them, and said, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also, for THEREFORE AM I SENT[150].
This then was the end of his ministry. He was to preach the word; but was not obliged to see that it took effect, or to wait the success of it. How repugnant then had it been to this end, to waste unnecessary time and power on unbelieving Nazareth, when so many other cities, and those better disposed, claimed their share of each!
But, further, the dispositions of these people towards him were such, as seemed likely, not only to retard and interrupt, but totally to prevent the execution of his ministry. They would either have found means, had he continued longer with them, to deliver him into the hands of the Jewish rulers, or by some act of violence would have taken away his life. This appears from the rage with which they drove him out of their city, and from their purpose, as St. Luke relates the story, to cast him down headlong from the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built[151]. So that his attempt to convert them by more miracles, might have put an untimely end to his ministry, when it was now but little more than begun. And, though this event might at any time have been prevented by an exertion of his miraculous power, and without doubt would have been prevented in that manner, had the conjuncture made it necessary; yet this was no reason for his exposing himself to that danger, since, as we before observed, miracles are not to be expected or employed, where the end in view may be accomplished by human means. Accordingly, our Saviour consulted his own safety on all occasions during the course of his ministry, by every prudential method: And when he afterwards armed his disciples with the power of working miracles, he prescribed the same conduct to them, and, when they found themselves persecuted in one city, bade them flee to another[152]. It is generally thought, indeed, that nothing but a miracle rescued him out of the hands of the enraged people of Nazareth. If so, his danger among them must have been extreme, and shews the necessity of his removing from them. However, if this last miracle was wrought, it was one more added to the number of those he had worked in that city, and, like all the rest, was lost upon it. On the whole, it appears certain then, that the unbelief of these Nazarenes was a just reason for Christ’s not doing many miracles among them, since the opposite conduct would have tended to defeat the end and execution of his general office.
Still, the most direct and convincing answer to the objection is behind: For,
IV. Lastly, I observe that Jesus did not many miracles before the unbelieving men of Nazareth, because such a display of his power would have been contrary to a general rule of conduct, which he prescribed to himself, and that, on the highest reason.
This rule was, not to work a miracle upon them, or for them, who were deficient in faith: By which term, faith, I do not mean a grounded faith in him, as the Messiah, (for that could only be produced originally by miracles) but such an honesty and probity of mind as might dispose them to believe on the evidence of miracles. It was in this case, as in that of Parables, to him only who hath, more was given. And therefore the first question be put to those, who repaired to him for a miraculous relief of their necessities, was, Do Ye believe? Are ye withheld by no fixed and willful prejudices from supposing that one, coming to you under the character of the Messiah, is empowered to do this for you, or from yielding to its evidence, when it is done? This was so indispensable a rule with him, that St. Mark, in relating this adventure at Nazareth, goes so far as to say that he COULD NOT DO many mighty works there because of their unbelief[153]. The meaning of which is, that there was, no natural indeed, but a moral impossibility of his working more miracles there; that is, he could not do it, consistently with the general principles, on which he acted.
And that these principles were founded in the best reason, no man can doubt who reflects, that the highest possible favour, which can be conferred on man, that is, a miracle wrought for his salvation, reasonably supposes some degree of desert, some prior dispositions to profit by it; who reflects farther, that, where such a preparation of mind is not, the miracle is thrown away; nay, worse than that, can only serve to the hurt and condemnation of that person, on whom, or for whom it is performed.
Men have a strange notion, that when God intends to convince any one by the evidence of miracles, he should repeat and enforce that evidence, till it take effect, whether we will or not; nay, that the most obstinate and determined infidelity is only a stronger reason for his contending with it. But this is a very presumptuous, as well as injurious, conception of the divine nature: It is presumptuous in the highest degree, because it supposes that we have a right to prescribe terms to infinite power and wisdom: It is greatly injurious to the Supreme Being, because it supposes that he has no regard to the moral worth of his creatures, or even to any reasonable end, in the wonders he does for them. The Scriptures represent this matter in another light: they require something, where much is given; they expect from us to have, before we receive; they suppose us in short to be moral agents, and not machines. And our Lord himself, speaking in the proverbial language of the Jews, gives it as a special command to his Disciples, Not to cast that which is holy unto dogs, not to cast their pearls before swine[154]. All this is agreeable to our best notions of the divine wisdom and goodness, as well as to the usual course of God’s providence; and therefore on this footing only the conduct of Jesus towards the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth is abundantly justified.
To draw to a point, then, the substance of what has been said. To the question, why Jesus did not more miracles, before the unbelieving? We reply, That such conduct was not necessary to the end of miracles, which was to afford a reasonable conviction—that it was not likely to answer any good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful to such unbelievers—that it tended to defeat the design and success of Christ’s ministry, by narrowing the sphere, of shortening the term of it—that, lastly and chiefly, it was unreasonable in itself, and contrary to the general scheme and order of God’s moral government.
Let no man then abuse himself with foolish imaginations, as if Christ was wanting in that which became his office and mission; still less, as if he acted from any caprice, or unconcern for the souls of men, in not forcing their belief; but least of all, as if his pretensions had any thing to fear from the little faith of those to whom he addressed himself, and could only prevail with the weak and credulous, with those who were unable or indisposed to scrutinize his miracles. Even this last insinuation has been made, not only without grounds, but against the fullest evidence; the miracles of Jesus having been numerous, public, illustrious, and even acknowledged, at least not convicted of imposture, by his bitterest enemies, by those who were most active and most able to examine into the truth and reality of them.
With regard to the miracles in question, let us be so ingenuous as to confess, that, if these were necessary to announce his office and character to the men of Nazareth, more than these were unnecessary, and that their unbelief affords the best grounds to conclude, that they were so. Consider too, that, if no reasons had occurred to us for this conduct, it could not certainly appear that it was unreasonable. When we know, in fact, what the method of God’s dealing with mankind has been, in any instance, we may be able perhaps to discern good reasons for it. But we can seldom affirm with any shew of reason, from any preconceptions or general speculations of our own, what it should or must be. Here we are manifestly out of our depth, and cannot stir a step without the hazard of absurdity or impiety.
If we have reason to admit the divine authority of our Religion, whatever conduct it ascribes to Jesus, must be fit and right, however impenetrable to us. If we admit it not, our concern is to see that we have reason for not admitting it. This matter is to be tried by the evidence given of that authority only, I mean by the external proofs, and historic testimony, on which it rests. When this is done, no slight cavils of reason, no fanciful suspicions, no plausible objections, nor any thing else but the most obvious contradiction in something it asserts to the clearest dictates of the human understanding (which no man has ever yet found) can possibly shake, or so much as affect, that authority.
In the present case, we have seen how entirely groundless the objection is to Christ’s conduct at Nazareth. But if this objection could not have been answered, nothing had followed but a conviction of our ignorance. It might still be true (as we now see it to be), that Jesus acted agreeably to his divine character in not doing many miracles before the people of Nazareth, because of their unbelief.
We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord.
We may consider these words, either as an admonition to the ministers of the Gospel, To preach not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; or simply as a fact, which St. Paul asserts of himself and the other Apostles, That they preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord.
In either sense, the words are instructive; but I take them in the latter sense, only. I would confirm and illustrate this assumed fact: and then employ it as a medium to prove the divine authority of the sacred writings. If it be true, that the Apostles preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, it will, perhaps, be seen to follow, That therefore they preached not from their own private suggestions, but by the direction of the spirit of God.
The assertion of the Text is, indeed, general, and to this effect, “That a number of persons, who were employed to convert the world to the Religion of Jesus, did, in the tenour of their lives and the course of their ministry, pay no regard to their own interests of any kind, and were only intent on the due discharge of their commission.”
But the subject, in that extent, is too large for a discourse of this nature. What I would offer to your consideration, is ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of that indifference which the Apostles shewed to their own interests, I mean, Their total disregard of human applause in preaching the Gospel.
In this restrained sense of the words, men may be said to preach themselves, in TWO respects: When they shew a solicitude to set themselves forth with advantage: 1. as to their MORAL character. And 2. as to their INTELLECTUAL.
I. When men would give an advantageous idea of their moral character, they usually express this design, either, 1. By representing or insinuating their superior worth and virtue: Or, 2. By suppressing or palliating what may render it suspected: Or, 3. lastly, By dwelling on such topics, and in such a manner, as may give occasion to others to think well of their moral qualities.
Let us try the Apostolic writings by each of these marks.
1. The first way that men take to illustrate their moral character, is, By representing, or insinuating their worth and virtue, on all occasions.
Consider those apologists for themselves, who have left us memoirs of their own lives. You will find, in most of these, an ambitious display of those moral virtues, by which they desire to be distinguished. They lose no opportunity of setting forth the purity of their designs, and the integrity of their practice. The rest, may do this with less pomp and affectation: they may preserve a modesty in the language, and a decent reserve in the air and cast, of their narration. Still, the same purpose is discoverable in all these writers, whether they openly proclaim, or nicely suggest and insinuate their own importance. When men are actuated with a strong desire of appearing in the fairest light to others, it unavoidably breaks out in some shape or other, and all the indirect ways of address cannot conceal it from the intelligent observer.
We have a great example in two, the most extraordinary persons of the pagan world, I mean, XENOPHON, and JULIUS CÆSAR. These admired men thought fit to record their own acts and atchievements; and have done it with that air of neglect and unpretending simplicity, which has been the wonder of mankind. Yet, through all this apparent indifference, every one sees the real drift of these elaborate volumes: every one sees, that they are composed in such a way as to excite the highest opinion, not of their ability in the art of war only, but of the justice, generosity, benevolence, in short, the moral qualities of their respective authors. It evidently appears that they designed to be their own panegyrists; though none but such men could have executed that design, in so inoffensive and successful a manner.
But now, if we turn to the sacred writers, we shall find no traces of their preaching themselves, in this respect. These plain fishermen tell their story unambitiously, and without art; or, if we call it art, it is such an one as Greece and Rome had never been able to put in practice. No exaggerations of what may be thought praise-worthy in themselves: no oblique encomiums on their own best qualities or actions: no complacent airs in the recital of what may reflect honour on their own characters: no studied reserve and refinement in the turn and language of their history.
If there be any virtue, which we may suppose them more than commonly anxious to arrogate to themselves, any moral quality, in which they would shine out to the observation of others, what more likely than an unshaken fidelity to their Master? that Master, whom they made it their glory, their sole glory, as the Text speaks, to preach? Yet they are so far from respecting their own credit in this particular, that they relate their own infirmities and miscarriages; they acknowledge how wavering and precarious their faith was; nay, they tell us that, in his last distresses, they all forsook him, and fled[155].
2. This last circumstance reminds us of the next artifice which men employ to set off their moral character, that of suppressing or palliating whatever may render it suspected.
As accomplished persons, as the great men, before mentioned, were, can we doubt that many exceptionable steps were taken by them in the affairs, they managed: that, on some occasions, their prudence failed them, and their virtue, on others; that their counsels and measures were conducted, at times, with too little honesty, or too much passion? Yet, you will in vain look for any thing of this sort in their large and particular histories. All is candid and fair, judicious and well advised: every thing speaks the virtuous man, and able commander. The obnoxious passages are either suppressed, or they are turned in such a way as to do honour to their Relaters.
Or, take another instance. When Cicero had offended against the capital law of his moral code, that, which enjoined the love of his country, first, by his backwardness to join the camp of Pompey, and, afterwards, by his prompt submission to the tyranny of Cæsar, What is the conduct of the illustrious Roman patriot, on this pressing occasion? Does he frankly condemn these false steps, or does he content himself with a simple relation of them? Neither of these things: He softens and disguises the truth; he employs all his wit and eloquence to palliate this inglorious desertion of his principles, to himself and others.
I might add many other examples. But ye see, in these, a striking contrast to the ingenuity of the sacred writers. They study no arts of evasion or concealment. They proclaim their own faults, and even vices, to all the world. One, acknowledges himself to have been a furious bigot, a persecutor, and blasphemer[156]: Another, relates his own cowardice, ingratitude, and treachery[157]. There is nothing like a concert between them to cover each other’s defects: They expose the vindictive zeal of one[158]; the intolerant spirit of others[159]; the selfish intrigues of all[160]. In a word, they give up their moral character to the scorn and censure of their readers, and appear solicitous for nothing but the honour of their Master—They preach not themselves, but the Lord Jesus Christ.
But ye will say, this apparent candour was the most consummate art; and that they confessed some obnoxious passages in their lives, to procure themselves credit in other instances. This, no doubt, is sometimes the case with artful writers and speakers: But then only, when small defects and miscarriages are confessed; or, when the facts are too notorious to be dissembled; or, if perhaps they confess such things of themselves, as are highly blameable, and might otherwise have been concealed, they do it to gain the praise of a more than ordinary frankness and ingenuity, they apparently make a matter of vanity, even of that confession[161]. The case is much otherwise with the preachers of Jesus. They scruple not to tax themselves with the most odious vices; and these too, many times of such a nature as shews, they might well have been kept secret from all the world; while yet the discovery is made in such a way, that suspicion itself cannot charge them with the design of drawing any credit to themselves from it.
Hitherto, we have considered how many men may contrive to celebrate or insinuate their own virtues, to suppress or disguise their own vices, in narratives or memorials of their lives; and how free the Apostles are from the suspicion of doing either. But the same design may be prosecuted in writings of another sort: and we have writings of another sort from the hands of the Apostles. I observe then
3. That, when writers are studious of their own fame, they find means, in any moral or historic work, though themselves be not the professed subject of it, to do honour to their own character, by dwelling on such topics, and in such a manner, as may give occasion to others to think well of their moral qualities.
They declaim, perhaps, with much heat against certain vices, or expatiate with much complacency on certain virtues; or, they labour some disgraceful portraits of bad men, and draw their favoured characters with all the heightenings of panegyrick: And who will suppose, after this specimen of their zeal, that they themselves are not adorned with those good qualities, which they so studiously recommend, or are not exempt from those bad ones, which they so industriously expose? The artifice is so common, that we have it played upon us every day; and yet so imposing, that it constantly succeeds with us. How many popular characters does every one call to mind, that have no foundation but in this favourable prejudice! But let me carry your thoughts back to ancient times, and fix them on far higher instances. Who that reads the moral prefaces and digressions of the historian SALLUST, but must imagine the author to have been a model of ancient frugality and austere manners? And who that looks into the philosopher SENECA, and finds him all on fire in celebrating some distinguished characters, and exposing some detested ones, but will conclude the writer to have been himself accomplished in all virtue?
I make no enquiry, at present, into the real characters of these illustrious persons: I pass no judgment on the real merit of their books. Their zeal might be an honest one; and the form of their writings might be owing to that zeal. But this, I observe, that the form itself is well suited to the purpose of those who would preach themselves; and that the sacred writers have not thought fit to adopt this method.
Their books indeed are full of moral sentences and moral precepts (for they are teachers of morality by profession); but short, and simple; and though earnestly enforced, not ostentatiously displayed. The historic part of their writings is wonderful for its calmness, I had almost said, insensibility. No attempt to colour their good or bad characters. Even the transcendant virtues of their Master are left to be collected rather from the simplest exposition of what he said and did, than from any formal representation of them: And, what is stranger still, his betrayers and murderers are loaded with no invective, nor set to scorn in any odious lights[162]. These divine men are superior to the prejudices even of virtue itself; and have so little thought of deriving a vanity from their own honest feelings, that we are almost left in doubt, whether they were, indeed, actuated by them.
II. Thus much for the indifference of the sacred writers to their moral character: Let us now see whether they are more concerned for their INTELLECTUAL.
There are two ways which men take to display their mental qualities: 1. By labouring to make appear an extraordinary acuteness of understanding: And 2. By aiming at the praise of extraordinary wit and eloquence.
It is superfluous to observe to you how these two characters predominate in all the writings and speeches of uninspired men. Consider, if there be one exception in all those whom the world most approves and admires: Consider, if there be not evident symptoms of this vanity in every single writer or speaker, that has undertaken to instruct or reform mankind. I deny not, that many of these have been persons of great modesty and distinguished virtue: Yet they never lose sight of their own mental accomplishments; they never forget, under some shape or other, in this respect, to preach themselves. Even He, who now so freely censures this infirmity in others, is, perhaps, at the instant, an example of it, himself.
Let us see, then, if the preachers of the Gospel have the singular prerogative to stand clear of this general imputation.
1. They certainly lay no claim to any superior quickness of understanding. On the contrary, they relate many circumstances, which clearly imply their own dulness and inapprehension. They acquaint us with the gross mistakes, they were apt to fall into, in their conversations with their Master; they are at a loss to comprehend his parables, nay to look beyond the literal sense of the plainest figures; they even record the reproaches which Jesus made to them on these occasions.
But this slowness of conception, it will be said, was in their early unenlightened state, and was, perhaps, affected by them to do honour to their subsequent illuminations. Be it so. But how do these illuminated men employ the divine light, that was imparted to them? In advancing curious theories in Morals, or in framing subtle Metaphysical systems? Do they affect a philosophic depth or accuracy in their researches into human nature, or a superior penetration in their reasonings about spiritual things? Do they shine in paradoxes? or strike with quaint aphorisms? Do they entertain us with exquisite positions, or remote conclusions? Nothing of all this. What they teach of moral and divine things, is with the air of men, not who make discoveries, but who deliver known and familiar truths. They tell us many things, which we knew not before: But they tell them as matters of divine commission, not of their own collection or investigation. And, for the rest, they presume not to speculate upon them, at all.
Indeed, the general subject of their discourses was such, as gave no scope to the exercise, and afforded no gratification to the pride, of Reason. They publish to the world a matter of fact, of which they were eye-witnesses; they attest the death and resurrection of Jesus, and preach remission of sins in his name. These were the points they witnessed both to small and great; saying none other things than those, which they had seen and heard, and which the Prophets and Moses did say come to pass[163]. Is there any thing in such a doctrine, as this, that looks like preaching themselves? Can it be thought that such teachers had an eye to the credit of their own abilities, or that they meant to advance the reputation of their own understandings above that of other men?
2. Still less reason is there to charge this ambition on their manner of preaching, or to imagine that they sought the fame of ingenuity from the terms in which they conveyed their instructions to mankind. If the substance of their doctrine was plain facts, their language was that of plain men. They spake not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom; scarcely with the ordinary propriety, certainly, not with what is called the purity and elegance, of their tongue.
But the fact is not disputed, rather is objected to them by such as question their inspiration (with what reason, we shall presently see); so that I may fairly conclude, that such men could have no purpose to recommend themselves by the arts of speaking, or, that, with regard to the praise of wit and eloquence, they could not possibly mean to preach themselves.
Not let it be said, that this unornamented style of preaching was the effect of their ignorance, and inability to reach the graces of a juster manner. For, besides that it is no new thing for men to affect what they have no talents for, it is certain that ONE at least of the Apostles, He, whose province it was to convert the Gentile world, long since enamoured of the study of eloquence, and who, of all the Apostles, wrote most, it is certain, I say, that this great man was not disqualified by a want of parts or learning, from pretending to this prize of eloquence, if his ambition had condescended to it.
III. It appears then, with a reasonable degree of evidence, that the writers of the New Testament had no regard to themselves, that is, to the reputation either of their Moral or Intellectual virtues, in composing those books. The fact, as singular as it is, seems well established: And I draw this interesting conclusion from it, That, therefore, they preached, not from their own private suggestions, but by the direction of the Holy Spirit.
This conclusion follows undeniably from that fact. For, if such a number of persons, of different tempers, educations, and professions, could be so disinterested as to overlook their own credit in a point, which all other men have so exceedingly at heart, and which no other men, nay which no other single man has ever been able to give up; and that too, when they were teaching a divine religion, and might therefore seem to have a decent pretence for assuming all sorts of merit to themselves; if this, I say, be a certain fact, what can we conclude, but that the Spirit of God, to whose enlightening influences they ascribed their doctrine, over-ruled their natural self-love in the manner of preaching it, and that these holy men spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost?
To return then to the Text, and to conclude. We preach not ourselves—said St. Paul, in his own name and that of the other Apostles—We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. The writings of these men are still extant; and bear the fullest testimony to the truth of what they assert. This, then, among many others, is an intrinsic character, impressed on those writings, of their divine original. It may be regarded, as a standing miracle, which, as oft as we revolve and consider them, speaks aloud, as in a voice from Heaven, that the Scriptures, they have left us, are the word and work of God.
If their uninspired successors in the ministry of the word be unable to copy so bright an example of humility and self-denial, forgive them this defect, or impute it, if you will, to natural vanity and unsubdued self-love. But, when ye chance to observe this infirmity in others, forget not to say to yourselves, that this high privilege of preaching not themselves was reserved to the Evangelists and Apostles only, to dignify their character; and to excite, confirm, and support our faith; in a word, to manifest to all the world, in the very frame and texture of the sacred Oracles, that they were, indeed, dictated by the Spirit of God.
The Poor have the Gospel preached unto them.
Many circumstances, attending the Gospel of Jesus, are such, as we should not previously have expected: Yet, when duly considered, they fully approve themselves to our best reason.
We have a memorable instance, in the Text. Among other marks, by which it pleased our blessed Lord to authenticate his mission, one was, That the Poor had the Gospel preached unto them. Go, (says he to the disciples of John the Baptist, who had sent them to know of Jesus, whether he were indeed the Messiah) Go, and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and THE POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED UNTO THEM.
We are surprized, perhaps, on the first mention of these words, to find this last circumstance put upon a level with the rest, even with that greatest of all miracles, the raising of the dead to life. We may not immediately apprehend, why the Poor should be thus considered by the Saviour of the world; or how the truth of his pretensions comes to be concerned in this treatment of them. But, upon inquiry, we shall find there were some important reasons which determined our Lord to this conduct, and which made that conduct, in a peculiar manner, expressive of his person and office.
First, This character was directly applied to the Messiah, in the ancient prophecies. Our Lord himself, in the text, quotes the very words of Isaiah: So that, in preaching the Gospel to the Poor, he fulfilled that prediction, and so far corresponded to the character, which the word of prophecy had given of the Messiah.
But this circumstance, we may suppose, would have been no part of the Messiah’s character, but for reasons which made it fit and right, that He should be thus distinguished. Let us, further, inquire, then,
Secondly, what those reasons, probably were; only premising one word, to ascertain the objects, both of the prophecy, and of our Lord’s charitable attention.
There is no doubt but the word, poor, in the prophecies alledged, and in Christ’s application of them, is very capable of being understood in a metaphorical or spiritual sense, and was even intended to be so understood; I mean, in that sense, which our Lord gives to the word, Poor, when he says—Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven[164]. But this metaphorical sense does not exclude, it rather supposes, the literal. For, who are the poor in spirit, for the most part, but the poor in fortune? they, whom neither the pride of knowledge and education, nor the pride of wealth and place, has corrupted with vain ideas of their own sufficiency? But, there is a peculiar reason for the literal interpretation of the Text. For the words, blind, lame, and deaf, have, likewise, their metaphorical sense in the prophet, as well as the word, poor. Yet our Lord alledges the completion of the prophecy, in the literal meaning of those words; for he refers the messengers of John to what they saw and heared; to the miracles, he was then working, or had worked, on the blind, lame, and deaf, that is, in restoring their bodily senses and members[165]. So that, when the poor are spoken of by Jesus, at the same time, we must needs understand him as speaking of the poor, properly so called, that is, of the lower ranks of people, whom he was even then instructing, as well as healing.
We see, then, That Christ preached the Gospel to the poor, in the literal, as well as spiritual sense of that word: And, in so doing, he both fulfilled the whole extent of the prophecy; and, as we shall now find, gave an eminent proof of the GOODNESS and WISDOM of his own character.
For, consider the state of the poor, how much they wanted, and how much better, than the rich, they deserved, instruction, when our Lord, in mercy, came to preach the Gospel to them.
I. The condition of the poor, that is, of the people at large, was truly deplorable, at that time. They were every where treated by their superiors with the utmost contempt, and left to struggle with an almost invincible ignorance and corruption.
The Jews, indeed, had the benefit of a divine law: but their Scribes and Doctors had made it of none effect, by their traditions[166]. They had corrupted the word of God, by their fanciful cabbalistical glosses; and had debased their holy ritual, into a frivolous and sordid superstition. They had the key of knowledge in their hands; but they neither employed it to the purpose of opening the true meaning of the Scriptures, themselves, nor would suffer the people to make this use of it. In the mean time, their pride increased with their other vices: they thought themselves wise and prudent[167], and righteous[168]; and, in sovereign admiration of their own worth and knowledge, they despised others. Their insolence to the poor was so transcendant, that they reproached them for that ignorance, which themselves had occasioned; and even checked their endeavours to understand the true meaning of their law, in terms of the bitterest scorn and execration. Have any of the Rulers or Pharisees, said they, believed in Jesus? But this people[169], that knoweth not the law, are accursed.
Such was the state of the poor, among the Jews: and that of the Gentile poor was no better. As the former were only insulted, and not instructed, by their RABBIS; So the latter were just as ill treated by their PHILOSOPHERS.
These men, indeed, professed themselves wise; and had, in some respects, a juster claim, than the Jewish doctors, to that proud, distinctive appellation. Though their reasoning, on many subjects (on which, however, they valued themselves most) was little better than that of the Cabbalists; yet, in moral matters, which are of the highest concern to mankind, they had been able to trace out some plausible and ingenious theories, and had even penetrated so far as to apprehend some general and fundamental principles of natural religion. Yet all this was matter of vanity among them, rather than of public use. Their most interesting speculations were either confined to their schools, or secreted from the common eye, in their mysteries. Their moral systems were calculated to amuse, to polish, and, we will say, to instruct the higher ranks of men; but they were composed in such a way, and proceeded on such principles, that the vulgar could be little benefited by them. And, for what they knew of religious truth, they studiously kept it from the poor, and left them to the tyranny of their senseless, their impure, their abominable superstitions. Even Socrates himself, though he laboured very commendably to reform the lives of his fellow-citizens, yet laboured to little effect, as he would not, or durst not, disgrace their idolatries, the source of all their corruption and misery. The rest of these wise men were well contented, at most, with being wise to themselves; they stood aloof from the prophane vulgar; and contemplated, with much complacency, or with much disdain, the popular errors.
Such, and so wretched were the poor, when our blessed Lord came to announce the good tidings of salvation to them! Incapable of themselves to find out or to understand their duty, and misled, neglected, or contemned by those who should have been their instructors; lost in error and in vice, with no prospect of recovering themselves out of either; without guides, and without friends; in a word, without hope, and without God in the world[170]; What could equal their wants and their distresses? And how loudly did they cry to Heaven for some friendly hand to be stretched out, some celestial light to be dispensed, to them?
But, perhaps, these unhappy men deserved not the care of Heaven. And, without doubt, if we put their claim on that footing, it will be difficult to make out their title to such distinction. Yet they had something, too, to plead for themselves, something to engage the regards of their merciful Creator, if it be true, as I observed,
II. In the next place, that their hearts, depraved as they were, were yet not so utterly perverse, as those of the rich and great and wise, who poured such contempt upon them.
And, for our satisfaction in this point, we need but look into the Gospel-history; where we find, from many facts and testimonies, that the poorer sort among the Jews were they who gave the best proofs of their disposition to embrace the doctrine, and acknowledge the pretensions, of Jesus.
When he preached to the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees, that is, the rich and wise, almost universally and without exception, cavilled at his doctrine, perverted his words, and sought occasion only how they might entangle him in his talk[171]. But the people, giving way to the ingenuous sense of their own minds, heared him gladly[172]: They were even very attentive to hear him[173]. Nor let it be thought, that the love of novelty, or some worse motive, which oft seduces the populace in such cases, was the cause of this attention. They give another, and better reason of it—Never man, say they, spake like this man[174]: Again, they were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes[175]; That is, they had the sense to perceive there was a weight and force and importance in his doctrines, which they had never found in any other, and, least of all, in the light, frothy, and frivolous doctrines of their Scribes; and they had the honesty to acknowledge and proclaim their own feelings.
Again; When Jesus wrought his miracles before the Jews, while their superiors were unconvinced, or blasphemed against conviction, the multitudes cried out in admiration, Is not this the Son of David[176]?—It was never, they say, so seen in Israel[177]—With a becoming candour and piety, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men[178].
Thus much for the Jews. And the same difference, between the rich and poor, afterwards appeared, when the Apostles turned themselves to the Gentiles. So that St. James reasons upon it, as a certain fact. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the Judgment seats? Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called[179]? And St. Paul to the same purpose, when appeals to the Gentile Christians themselves—Ye see your calling, my brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called[180].
And, if we extend our inquiries beyond the Apostolic age, we still find, that, while councils and synagogues, priests and philosophers, governors and kings, were confederated against the rising church, the poor, the weak, the ignorant, the ignoble, very readily, and in great numbers, pressed into it.
Considering then this fairness of mind, which distinguished the poor, together with their multiplied necessities, we shall cease to think it strange that our blessed Lord should first and principally preach the Gospel to them; and that this circumstance should be predicted of him, and urged by himself, as characteristic of his person and office. For what could distinguish the divine Messiah more, than this condescension to those who most needed, and best deserved, his instruction? Who can wonder that, when he saw the multitudes, thus circumstanced, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted[181], under the merciless vexations of their superiors, and were scattered abroad[182], and left exposed to every injury, as sheep having no shepherd[183]? Could any splendor of miracles more illustrate his character, than that affectionate address to the poor people, groaning under all their burthens, of which the pride of wealth and wisdom was not the least, Come unto me, ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lonely in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls[184]?
Our Lord’s whole ministry seems uniformly directed to this end of beating down the insolence of all worldly distinctions, which had too much vilified and degraded human nature. For this purpose, he condescended, himself, to be born in the lowest rank of life, to be brought up in what the world calls a mean and mechanic profession, to converse chiefly with the poor and indigent, to take for his companions and disciples the most sordid of the people, and to propagate his religion by the weakest and most unpromising instruments: Chusing, as St. Paul divinely expresses it, the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise; the weak things of the world, to confound the things that are mighty; And the base things of the world, and things which are despised, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence[185].
In a word, he seems studiously to have bent his whole endeavours, to vindicate the honour of depressed humanity; to support its weakness, to countenance its wants, to ennoble its misery, and to dignify its disgrace.
Nor let any one presume to insinuate, that this conduct of our blessed Saviour was directed to other ends; As if he sought, by this application to the people, to engage them in the support of his new kingdom, and then, by their noise and numbers, to force the rest into it. The suspicion is utterly without grounds. Jesus made no factious use of the popularity he acquired by his condescension; he discountenanced and repressed every effort of that nature; and, though his care was chiefly employed about the poor, it was not confined to them: He preached indiscriminately to all, he did his miracles before all, in public, in open day-light, in the presence of the greatest persons, and in places of the greatest resort; in short, his doctrines and his credentials were equally offered to the examination of men of all ranks and all denominations, of the doctors and rulers of the Jewish people, as well as of the people themselves. This, an impostor most assuredly would not have done.
We have now, then, a reasonable account given us, why it pleased God that the Saviour of the world should be known by this mark, among others, of his preaching the Gospel to the poor. The GOODNESS of his character was signally illustrated, by this gracious conduct. I have only to observe, further, that his WISDOM was equally displayed by it: And both together must needs furnish a presumptive argument of his divine mission.
Had the ablest speculative philosopher been consulted about the proper method of reforming the world, though with the attending evidence and authority of miracles, I suppose his plan for effecting this design would have been wholly different from that, which was taken. He would have counselled an application, not to the poor chiefly, if to them at all, but to the rich, the great, and the wise. The minister of this important charge would have been directed to shew himself in the most conspicuous scene, to make the capital of the world, imperial Rome, the head-quarters of his mission, to perform his miracles before the Roman senate, and to proselyte, first of all, the wise and learned of that empire; As conceiving this to be the readiest way to the establishment of his new Religion, and trusting to the power of these great instruments, as to some irresistible vortex, to draw the people with them, into the general profession of it.
This, or something like this, we may imagine, would have been the language of human wisdom. But what would have been the event of these profound and politic counsels? Most probably, the design would not have taken effect. The interests, the prejudices, the pride, and the very philosophy of the world would have revolted against it. The plainest miracles would have been shuffled over, as the sleights of magick: and the divinest truths, been derided as unlearned and ignorant conceits.
But what if the event had been otherwise? What, if the new religion had prospered and acquired an establishment by these mighty means? Posterity would then have turned the argument in another manner. They would have accounted, and with some reason, for this revolution in the sentiments of mankind, not from the will of Heaven, but the power and policy of men. They would have sought the origin of this triumphant religion in the operation of human causes, and not in the controlling influence of divine. The new system might be preferred to many others that have prevailed in the world, but would be thought to have made its way by the same means. It would still be considered, as a mere human engine, calculated to serve the ends of society, and not to interest the conscience, as proceeding from the sole authority of God. And what could have been opposed to these suggestions? The cause is plainly adequate to the effect: And, thus, the glory of God would have been obscured; and the dispensation itself, exposed to contempt.
See then the riches both of the goodness and wisdom of God: Of his GOODNESS, in caring for the poor; and of his WISDOM, in providing by his use of so unlikely means, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.
To conclude; the ways of God are, very frequently, not our ways[186]; Yet, when the difference is most striking, a diligent inquiry will sometimes convince us (as in the case before us) that they may be justified even to our apprehensions: The use of which conviction should be, to satisfy us, in other cases, that his ways are always adorable, even when to US, in this state of weakness and blindness, they are past finding out.