Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERMON IV.

PREACHED MAY 24, 1767.

GAL. iii. 19.

_Wherefore then serveth the Law?_

When the Apostle Paul had proved, in his Epistle to the Romans[21], that if the _uncircumcision kept the righteousness of the Law, his uncircumcision would be accounted for circumcision_; that is, if the Gentile observed the _moral law_, which was his proper rule of life, he would be accepted of God, as well as the Jew, who observed the _Mosaic Law_; this generous reasoning gave offence, and he was presently asked, WHAT ADVANTAGE THEN HATH THE JEW[22]?

In like manner, when the same Apostle had been contending, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that _the inheritance was not of the Law, but of Promise_[23]; that is, that all men, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, were entitled to the blessings of the Christian covenant, in virtue of God’s _promise_ to Abraham—_that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed_—and not the Jews exclusively, in virtue of the _Mosaic Law_, given to them only; the same spirit discovers itself, as before, and he is again interrogated by his captious disciples, WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW? if the Gentiles may be justified _through faith in Christ_, and so inherit the promise made to Abraham, as well as the Jews, to what purpose was the Jewish Law then given?

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

Now, the same perverseness, which gave birth to these Jewish prejudices, seems to have operated in some Christians; who, on being told, and even by St. Paul himself, of _a Law of Nature_, by which the Heathen were required to govern their lives, and by the observance of which, without their knowledge of any revealed Law, they would be finally accepted, have been forward in their turn, to ask, WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW? Or, if there be a _natural Law_, according to which the very Heathen will be judged, and may be rewarded, what are the boasted privileges of _Revealed Law_, and, in particular, the revealed Law _of the Gospel_?

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

I. That the supposition of a _natural moral Law_ is even necessary to the support of REVELATION: And

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

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

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

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

II. _Any way derogate from the honour of the Christian Revelation_, in particular.

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

And, 1. IT DOES NOT DISCREDIT ITS USE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We say then, _first_, that the _Christian Law_, to whatever ends _it serveth_, presupposes the existence of a _prior natural Law_, by which its pretensions must be tried, and, of course, therefore, its honour is supported.

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

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

SERMON V.

PREACHED MAY 1, 1768.

HEB. ii. 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this remonstrance is properly addressed to those _that are without_, to the contemners of the Christian Law. To YOU, who are within the pale of Christ’s Church, and acknowledge his authority; who profess yourselves to be his servants; who admit no other Law, but in subjection to his, and have no expectation of life and glory from any other; to YOU, I say, the question of the text is above measure interesting, _How shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salvation?_

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

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

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

SERMON VI.

PREACHED NOVEMBER 16, 1766.

St. JOHN, xiv. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apply, now, this universal rule of just reasoning to the case of the _Gospel_. Consider it on the footing of that evidence, which it pretends to offer. If this evidence be weak and inconclusive in itself, let it be rejected. But, if it be sufficient to the purpose for which it is given, why look out for any _higher_? The pretensions of Christianity are, indeed, very great. It claims to be received by us, as the _work and word of God_. The proofs of its being such should, no doubt, be adapted to the nature of these pretensions. If, in fact, they be so adapted, all further attestations of its truth, all stronger demonstrations of its divinity (supposing there might be stronger) are, at least, _unnecessary_: our demands of them are without ground, and without reason: that is, they are clearly _not to the purpose_ of this inquiry. But

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

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