Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

[Transcriber’s Note:

Italicized text delimited by underscores.

There are many special characters in this text that require a utf-8 compliant font. If you find characters that appear as a question mark in a black box or a small rectangle with numbers in it, you should check your reader’s default font. If you have a font installed with SIL after the font name, you should use that one.]

THE

WORKS

OF

RICHARD HURD, D.D.

LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.

VOL. VI.

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

THE

WORKS

OF

RICHARD HURD, D.D.

LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.

IN EIGHT VOLUMES.

VOL. VI.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.

1811.

THEOLOGICAL WORKS.

VOL. II.

SERMONS

PREACHED AT

LINCOLN’S-INN,

BETWEEN THE YEARS 1765 AND 1776:

WITH

A LARGER DISCOURSE,

ON

CHRIST’S DRIVING THE MERCHANTS
OUT OF THE TEMPLE;

IN WHICH THE NATURE AND END OF THAT FAMOUS

TRANSACTION IS EXPLAINED.

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

TO THE

MASTERS OF THE BENCH

OF THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OF

LINCOLN’S INN,

THE FOLLOWING SERMONS,

IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR MANY AND

GREAT FAVOURS,

ARE BY THE AUTHOR

MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED.

CONTENTS

OF

THE SIXTH VOLUME.

SERMON I. Preached Feb. 3, 1771.

MAT. xiii. 51, 52.

_Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood
all these things? They say unto him, Yea,
Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore
every scribe which is instructed unto the
kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that
is an householder, which bringeth forth out
of his treasure things new and old._ 1

SERMON II. Preached Nov. 8, 1767.

1 COR. x. 15.

_I speak as to wise men: judge ye what I
say._ 23

SERMON III. Preached May 17, 1767.

ROM. ii. 14, 15.

_When the Gentiles, which have not the Law_,
DO _by Nature the things contained in the
Law, these, having not the Law, are a Law
unto themselves: which shew the work of
the Law written in their hearts, their_ CONSCIENCE
_also bearing witness, and their
thoughts in the mean while_ ACCUSING _or else_
EXCUSING _one another_. 37

SERMON IV. Preached May 24, 1767.

GAL. iii. 19.

_Wherefore then serveth the Law?_ 52

SERMON V. Preached May 1, 1768.

HEB. ii. 3.

_How shall we escape, if we neglect so great
Salvation?_ 67

SERMON VI. Preached Nov. 16, 1766.

JOHN xiv. 8.

_Philip saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father,
and it sufficeth us._ 83

SERMON VII. Preached in the year 1771.

JAMES iv. 1.

_From whence come wars and fightings among
you? Come they not hence, even of your
lusts that war in your members?_ 101

SERMON VIII. Preached April 29, 1770.

1 TIM. i. 5.

_The end of the Commandment is Charity, out of
a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and
of faith unfeigned._ 116

SERMON IX. Preached Nov. 9, 1766.

ROM. xii. 10.

—_In honour preferring one another._ 130

SERMON X. Preached May 6, 1770.

JOHN xiii. 8.

—_Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not,
thou host no part with me._ 143

SERMON XI. Preached June 20, 1773.

MARK ix. 49.

_For every one shall be salted with fire, and
every sacrifice shall be salted with salt._ 160

SERMON XII. Preached Feb. 9, 1766.

GAL. vi. 3.

_If a man think himself to be something, when
he is nothing, he deceiveth himself._ 174

SERMON XIII. Preached May 16, 1773.

2 COR. x. 12.

_We dare not make ourselves of the number, or
compare ourselves, with some that commend
themselves: But they, measuring themselves
by themselves, and comparing themselves
among themselves, are not wise._ 187

SERMON XIV. Preached April 27, 1766.

St. MARK iv. 24.

_Take heed what ye hear._

Or, as the equivalent phrase is in

St. LUKE, viii. 18.

_Take heed_ HOW _ye hear_. 201

SERMON XV. Preached Nov. 24, 1765.

ROM. xvi. 19.

_I would have you wise unto that which is good,
and simple concerning evil._ 215

SERMON XVI. Preached Dec. 1, 1765.

ROM. xvi. 19.

_I would have you wise unto that which is good,
and simple concerning evil._ 230

SERMON XVII. Preached Nov. 22, 1772.

JOHN v. 44.

_How can ye believe, which receive honour one
of another, and seek not the honour that
cometh of God only?_ 245

SERMON XVIII. Preached April 23, 1769.

JOHN ix. 41.

_Jesus saith to them, If ye were blind, ye should
have no sin; but now ye say, we see; therefore
your sin remaineth._ 260

SERMON XIX. Preached May 12, 1771.

1 COR. viii. 1.

_Knowledge puffeth up; but Charity edifieth._ 276

SERMON XX. Preached Nov. 19, 1769.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES xxvi. 9.

_I verily thought with myself, that I ought to
do many things contrary to the name of
Jesus of Nazareth._ 290

SERMON XXI. Preached May 10, 1767.

St. LUKE vi. 26.

_Woe unto you, when all men speak well of you._ 304

SERMON XXII. Preached Feb. 6, 1774.

St. JOHN viii. 11.

_Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn thee;
Go, and sin no more._ 319

SERMON XXIII. Preached March 1, 1772.

St. MATTHEW xi. 29.

_Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in
heart: and ye shall find rest unto your
souls._ 333

SERMON XXIV. Preached April 30, 1769.

LUKE xvi. 14.

_And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all those things: and they derided
him._ 350

SERMON XXV. Preached June 25, 1775.

ECCLESIASTES v. 10.

_He that loveth silver, shall not be satisfied
with silver._ 366

SERMON XXVI. Preached Feb. 21, 1773.

1 COR. vi. 20.

_Therefore glorify God in your body, and in
your spirit, which are God’s._ 378

SERMON XXVII. Preached March 13, 1774.

JOB xiii. 26.

_Thou writest bitter things against me, and
makest me to possess the iniquities of my
youth._ 393

SERMON XXVIII. Preached May 28, 1769.

ECCLESIASTES vii. 21, 22.

_Take no heed unto all words that are spoken,
lest thou hear thy servant curse thee. For
oftentimes, also, thine own heart knoweth,
that thou thyself, likewise, hast cursed
others._ 407

SERMON I.

PREACHED FEBRUARY 3, 1771.

ST. MATTH. xiii. 51, 52.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. That all the treasures of knowledge, which the MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL may have laid up in his mind, are destined, _not to the purposes of vanity, but to the use of his charge_; for such must have been the intention of a reasonable _Householder_, in the stock of provisions he had so carefully collected:

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

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

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

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

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

And the comparison is _aptly_ made, as we shall see if we consider, either the _end_ of a preacher’s office, or the _decorum_ of his character.

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

Besides, the Christian preacher has a _commission_ to discharge, a divine _message_ to deliver. And in such a case, men look not for ingenuity, but fidelity. An ancient, or a modern sophist may make what excursions he thinks fit into the wide fields of science; and may entertain us with his learning, or his wit, as he finds himself able. He _may_, I say, do this; for he has only to recommend himself to our esteem, and to acquire a little popular reputation. But WE have a _dispensation_ committed to us, _a form of sound words_, from which we must not depart, _a doctrine_, which we are to deliver with _uncorruptness_, _gravity_, _sincerity_[2]. We please not men, but God; or if men, _to their good_, only, _to edification_[3].

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

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

And, in this contempt of secular fame, they did but copy the example of St. Paul himself, the great Apostle of the Gentiles; who, though distinguished by the sublimest parts, though profound in his knowledge of the Law, and not unacquainted with Gentile learning, affected no display either of his natural or acquired talents, but, as he tells us himself (and his writings attest the truth of his declaration), _determined to know nothing_, among the faithful, _save Jesus Christ, and him crucified_[5].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERMON II.

PREACHED NOVEMBER 8, 1767.

1 COR. x. 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question then will be, ON WHAT PRINCIPLES SUCH APOLOGY MUST BE FORMED? A question the more important, because the apologies of all times have been too generally constructed on false and pernicious principles; on _such_ as cannot support, but rather tend to weaken and disgrace, the very cause they would defend.

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

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

From these miscarriages, we are admonished what to _avoid_: the example of the Apostle Paul, who _spake as to wise men_, may instruct us in the right way of _prosecuting_ the defence of the Gospel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And let thus much suffice, at present, for the duty _of him, who speaketh as to wise men_. Much more indeed is required to the _integrity_, and still more to the _success_, of his defence. But he that _speaketh, as the oracles of God_, that is, who defends a divine Religion on its own divine principles, does that which is most essential to his office; and eminently discharges the part of a _wise speaker_, since he plans his _defence_ in the best manner.

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

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

Let us briefly _examine_ then the pretentions of those, who have at all times been so ready to sit in judgement on the Advocates for Religion, by the known qualities of a capable Judge: which, I think, are _Knowledge_, _Patience_, _Impartiality_, _Integrity_, under which last name I include _Courage_.

1. The first requisite in a Judge, is a competent _knowledge_ in the subject of which he judges, without which his other qualities, how respectable soever, are rendered useless. Nor is this knowledge, in the present case, inconsiderable. For, to say nothing of _sacred and prophane Antiquity_, to say nothing of the _Sciences_, and above all, the science of _Ethics_, in its largest extent, the _Judge_ of religious controversy must be well versed, because the _Advocate_ is required to be _supremely_ so, in the great _principles and doctrines_ of natural and revealed Religion. To decide on _the merits of Christianity_, without this knowledge, would be as absurd, as to decide on _the merits of the English jurisprudence_, without an acquaintance with the _common law_, and the _Statute-book_.

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

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

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

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

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

I leave it to yourselves, therefore, to apply these observations, as ye think fit. Ye will conclude, however, that to _judge_ of the pretentions of your religion is no such easy task, as that any man, without _parts_, without _knowledge_, without _industry_, and without _virtue_, may presume to undertake it.

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

SERMON III.

PREACHED MAY 17, 1767.

ROM. ii. 14, 15.

_When the Gentiles, which have not the Law_, DO _by Nature the
things contained in the Law, these, having not the Law, are a Law
unto themselves: which shew the work of the Law written in their
hearts, their_ CONSCIENCE _also bearing witness, and their thoughts
in the mean while_ ACCUSING _or else_ EXCUSING _one another_.

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

Whence it would follow, that, if this equal measure was to be dealt to _both_, in the _future judgement_, it could not seem strange if _both_ were to be admitted to the _present benefits and privileges_ of the Gospel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. _From the force of conscience in the heathen world._