Chapter I: FIRST, Infidelity may proceed from the Pride of Reason (2)

Hence it appears, that the way of speaking in Parables, which Jesus employed towards the Jews, was that which the word of prophecy had declared he should employ towards them. So that this was one, among others, of the marks, by which the Messiah should be known and distinguished. _To speak in Parables_, was a part of his office: It was a duty imposed upon him, in his very commission.

But this, you will say, is only removing the difficulty one step backwards, and transferring it from the Gospel upon the Law; And you still ask, upon what reasons this strange way of proceeding with the Jews, thus foretold and enjoined, was founded?

Now, though it becomes us with much reverence to inquire into the reasons of God’s dispensations, yet as we see, in fact, that it was God’s will to treat the Jews in this manner, we may be allowed to indulge some conjectures on the subject; And, as we have traced this difficulty up to its source, this will be the proper place to attempt a more full solution of it.

To make way for this solution, let it be observed, that there are two ways in which this famous prophecy of Isaiah may be regarded by us; either, first, as _a mere prediction of the event_, namely, that by this way of speaking to them in Parables, the Jews _would_ not be converted; Or, secondly, _as a judicial determination of it_, namely, that this obscure way of teaching was therefore employed, because it was in the divine councils that they _should_ not be converted. In either way of considering the Prophecy, this mysterious conduct may, I think, be cleared up.

If we consider the _event_ only, as pointed out by this Prophecy, then the reason, which Jesus himself gives of this conduct, and which has been before explained, namely the general fitness of such a procedure in itself, is a satisfactory account of it. For what more just than to leave men to the consequences of their own behaviour, and not to reward them with that which they neither desire nor deserve?

But, perhaps, the event was not simply predicted of the Jews, but _determined_ upon them[141]. And there may be reason to take the prophecy, the rather, in this light, because however fit such a conduct, as it describes, may be in itself, yet, in fact, it was not observed towards the Gentiles, nor even the Jews after the descent of the holy Ghost; the Apostles not addressing either in the way of Parables, as our Lord had done the unbelieving Jews: and this agreeably to their Master’s express injunctions to them—_for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known; What I tell you in darkness that speak ye in the light, and what ye hear in the ear that preach ye upon the house-tops_[142]. This different conduct may then lead us to suspect that there was something peculiar in the situation of those Jews, to whom Jesus addressed his Parables, which this prophecy respected; and that it was God’s purpose, in the case of such of them as should stand out against this so long abused mode of information, when proceeding from the mouth of the Messiah himself, to leave them under a judicial blindness. And supposing this to be the case, the conduct (as severe as it seems) may be justified by the following considerations.

1. All the notices, which it had pleased God to give to the ancient Jews of the Gospel dispensation, were conveyed in this way of Parable. The terms, employed in the old prophecies, were all taken from the Law, but the true meaning lay deeper, and the right application of those prophecies was to the Christian Covenant, and to the character and dispensation of the Messiah. This method of predicting the Gospel under legal ideas, was employed for the wisest reasons[143]: The Jews had been constantly trained and brought up in it; and, notwithstanding the real obscurity this mode of teaching was intended to have, yet with fair attentive minds they might easily have apprehended the true drift and purpose of it. The Prophets call upon them perpetually to give this attention: they even drop frequent hints, that might lead them to the discovery: and, upon occasion, do every thing but expound in direct terms, their own parables.

What now was the effect of all this intelligence, so gradually, so repeatedly, so solicitously, as it were, imparted to them? Why, they would not hear, nor understand: they perversely and obstinately rested in the cover of these predictions; would look for nothing beneath or beyond it, indulged their prejudices about the eternity of their law, and the temporal power of their expected Deliverer, so far, that, when at length their Deliverer came, for whom this chain of prophetic instruction was meant to prepare them, they did not and would not acknowledge him. For this gross neglect of a mode of information, so long and so mercifully indulged to them, God thought fit to punish them by the very instrument of their offence. He commissioned Jesus still to continue that way of Parables, which they had so outrageously abused; and so, in his justice, _made it the occasion of blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts_[144], to their final rejection and reprobation.

This seems to be the true state of the case: and what has Reason to object to it? Can any thing be more just, than that a much abused mercy should end in punishment? And can any thing be more fit, than that such punishment should be the forfeiture of that blessing, which the mercy was intended to convey, and should even be inflicted by the very means of that mercy[145]? What is there in this œconomy of God’s religious dispensations, which contradicts our ideas of the divine attributes? Nay, what is there in it, which does not accord to the known methods of his ordinary and moral government of the world? Health and Prosperity, Parts and Learning, are the merciful gifts of God to some men. To these mercies, rightly improved, certain blessings are, in the order of his providence, annexed. Yet how often do we see men deprived of the blessings, for their misuse of those mercies, and deprived by means of the very mercies themselves! The mercies are a snare to them; and in the way of natural punishment inflict those evils, which they were intended to prevent. Thus, health and prosperity, ill employed, bring on a diseased old age, and an uncomfortable enjoyment of life; and parts and learning, so fitted to produce true knowledge, are the means by which many are led into presumption and mistake.

And in this way, we easily conceive how justly the Jews were punished, in their rejection of the Messiah, for their wilful abuse and misinterpretation of the Scripture Prophesies concerning him; and how fitly the punishment was conveyed by Christ’s _speaking to them in Parables_, that is, by that mode of instruction by that very instrument of mercy, which they had so much abused.

But though this perverseness of the Jews may be reasonably thought judicial, yet even _in his Judgments God remembers mercy_. Let it therefore be considered

2. In the second place, that, though Christ’s speaking to the Jews in Parables did eventually harden their hearts, yet not more so, perhaps not so much as the open communication of truth would have done.

I before took notice, that the subject of Christ’s parables was not the fundamental tenets of the Gospel, but _the mysteries of the kingdom of God_. This we know from the mouth of Christ himself; and it deserves to be considered. That Jesus was the Messiah, that all men were to believe in him, and to be saved by him, these great fundamental articles of his religion, together with his moral doctrine, were published plainly to all; and the evidences of his Messiahship, as resulting from his miracles and an appeal to their own prophecies, were in no sense concealed from the Jews. So that, in truth, the light afforded to them was by no means so penurious, or so darkly conveyed, as the objection supposes. What was kept back from them and thrown into the shade, was only or chiefly, the future fortunes of the Gospel, called _the Mysteries of God’s kingdom_; of which the rejection of the Jews, and the call of the Gentiles, were principal. These Christ delivered to the Jews in parables, _and without a parable spake he not_ on these subjects, _unto them_. Now, though it be true that, had people penetrated these mysteries, they might, by a right use of this knowledge, have been led to a just apprehension of many of their own prophecies, and, in the end, to an acknowledgement of the Christian faith; yet ’tis likely, considering their inveterate prejudices, that the clear delivery of these momentous truths would have had no such effect; nay, that their aversion to the faith of Jesus might have been increased by having this offensive information plainly and nakedly presented to them.

And there will seem to be more weight in this conjecture, if we reflect that even to the Apostles themselves, till after his resurrection, our Lord proceeded with much caution in unfolding _the mysteries of his kingdom. Then_, indeed, _he opened their understandings[146]; and, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself_[147]. But before that event had taken place, so much light only was let in upon the minds of the Disciples, as they were _able to bear_[148]: the _parables_ were in some measure explained to them; yet a certain degree of obscurity was still left on the explanation itself.

From which conduct of their great Master, apparently assumed by him in consideration of their infirmities, it seems reasonable to conclude, That his greater reserve towards the rest of the Jews, in speaking to them in _unexplained_ parables, was, among other reasons, therefore chosen by him, because it was best adapted to their prejudices, and even gave them the fairest chance for apprehending and embracing his doctrine. But

3. Thirdly, and lastly, what if we suppose (as we have the highest reason to do, after the trials, which had been already made of them) that no evidence whatsoever, not the clearest possible information, would, under any management, have had its due effect on the unbelieving Jews? In this view of things, the proposing of these mysteries under the impenetrable cover of Parables was the greatest of all mercies to them, since a further degree of light would not only have indisposed them to the reception of it, but must have aggravated their guilt beyond measure, and have left them totally without excuse. To _blind their eyes and harden their hearts_ was then a _judgment_, if you will, but surely a judgment in _mercy_, if ever there was any such thing; a punishment inflicted upon them in the most tender and compassionate manner, which goodness itself could contrive, or which their deplorable circumstances could admit.

These things being considered, To the question, _Why did Jesus speak to the unbelieving Jews in parables_, we may now reply, _first_, That this conduct was reasonable in itself, on that general principle of EQUITY, _that he only, who hath, shall receive more abundantly_: That, _secondly_, the JUSTICE of God was fitly exercised upon them for their refusing to be instructed by him in the way of Parable, and by the very medium of Parable, so abused: That still, _thirdly_, this parabolical method of instruction was, in all probability, better adapted to their circumstances, and more LIKELY to be effectual, than a plainer communication: And that, _lastly_, supposing it CERTAIN that no information whatever would have taken effect, this obscure and inefficient one of parables served, at least, as some excuse for their obstinacy, and was contrived, in mercy, to alleviate their guilt.

The result of the whole, is, That we are hence taught to adore the awful ways of God’s providence, in this instance of _Christ’s speaking in parables_; in which both his Justice and Goodness are so equally and signally displayed.

SERMON XXXIX.

PREACHED NOVEMBER 27, 1774.

MATTHEW xiii. 58.

_And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief._

There were two things, I observed, very remarkable in the conduct of our blessed Saviour towards the Jews. One was, that he chose to instruct the more ignorant and uninformed of them, in the obscure way of _parable_: The other, that he wrought but _few miracles_ for the conviction of such of them as were incredulous and unbelieving.

These two circumstances may be thought strange; because the less informed the people were to whom he addressed himself, the more need there seems to have been of the _plainest instruction_; and the less disposed they were to believe in him, the greater necessity we may think there was for subduing their unbelief by _the force of miracles_. Yet the conduct of Jesus was not according to these expectations, in either instance; and has accordingly furnished the occasion of TWO corresponding objections to his divine character and mission.

To the _former_ of these objections, that which respects his _way of speaking by parables_, I have already replied in a distinct discourse on that subject. The _latter_, which respects his _way of working miracles_, I now propose to consider.

The text, you see, points out the subject, and confines me to it. Jesus, in discharge of his general office, and from a principle, as we may suppose, of private affection, _went into his own country_, that is, to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, with the intention of preaching the Gospel there, and of giving the people of that place the proper proofs of his authority and mission. Accordingly, the sacred historian tells us, _he taught them in their synagogue_; And we know, besides, that he wrought some miracles; for the people were astonished and said, _Whence hath this man this_ WISDOM, and these MIGHTY WORKS?

They were the more astonished, because Jesus was no stranger to them; and the rest of his family, people of an obscure condition, then lived among them. They knew him only under the idea of a _Carpenter’s Son_, and they had observed perhaps nothing extraordinary him; or, if they had, this very circumstance, as is not uncommon among neighbours and countrymen, might have infused some jealousy and dislike of him. Be that as it will, their prejudices against him were extreme, and they expressed them in the most contemptuous manner. _Is not this_, say they, _the Carpenter’s Son? Is not his Mother called Mary? and his Brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his Sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him._ To these disparaging questions, which easily overpowered the evidence of conviction even from their own senses, Jesus only replied, _A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house_. And then the text follows, which says, _And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief_.

This is the FACT: And the question upon it, is, _Why Jesus forebore to work miracles among these people, because they did not believe in him?_

Before I reply distinctly to this question, permit me to premise _two_ general observations; one, on the use of miracles, considered in themselves; and the other, on the use of miracles, as applied to the Christian dispensation.

_First_, then, I observe, that, a miracle being, for the time, an alteration or suspension of the laws of nature, our best ideas of the divine attributes lead us to conclude, that this violence on his own plan of government is only exerted for some very important end, and will be exerted no farther, nor oftener, than is necessary to that end. It is true, it may be difficult for us to judge, in many cases, of that importance, and of that necessity; but unless both be very apparent to us, in no case, can we be authorized to require or even expect, a continuance or repetition, much less a multiplication of these miraculous exertions. To judge otherwise on this subject, would be to charge God foolishly, and, in effect, to blaspheme his wisdom.

_Secondly_, I observe, that the use of miracles, as applied to the Christian dispensation, is to give credit to the character and pretensions of Jesus. It is supposed in this argument that miracles, duly circumstanced and fully attested, are sufficient to this purpose; but there is no reason to suppose that more or greater will be wrought, than that purpose requires.

These things being premised, to the question, _Why Jesus did not many miracles, before the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth_, I reply directly by saying

I. In the first place, _because such a display of his power was not necessary to their conviction_. I mean not to say at present, that more or greater miracles would not have convinced them (though it be very unlikely, that they would), but that they were not necessary to the end proposed by them, which was to afford such an attestation to the character of Jesus as might be a reasonable and, in itself, a sufficient ground of their conviction. More than this the Jews had no right to expect. And less than this was not offered: For when it is said, that Jesus did not _many_ miracles at Nazareth, it is implied that he did _some_; and thus much they confess themselves in asking, _whence hath this man these mighty works?_

Now _some_ miracles, nay _one single_ miracle, seen and confessed as such, was a reasonable ground of conviction. More therefore could not be esteemed _necessary_, that is, were not required to furnish the fit and proper means of such conviction. Without doubt, God, if he had been so pleased, might have shattered and confounded all the elements, and have driven the men of Nazareth, and even the Jewish Sanhedrim itself, by the force and terror of his almighty power, into an unwilling acknowledgment of his Son, Jesus. But this is not the way in which he treats his reasonable creatures, even when he exceeds the ordinary methods of his providence. He does that which is simply fit and right, in respect of the end he has in view, and leaves the rest to ourselves. This, as far as we know, is the universal mode of God’s government, and as far as we can judge, is the most worthy of him.

Still, it will be said, though Jesus was not obliged to do more for the conviction of these unbelievers, though more or greater miracles could not strictly be required of him, yet so limited a display of his power on such an occasion seemed penurious, and even unkind. A little more zeal, and some supernumerary wonders, might have better expressed his concern for his unhappy countrymen. I reply then,

II. In the second place, that as more or greater miracles were not necessary to the end of giving a just proof of his mission, so they were most probably not expedient to any other good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful and pernicious to his unbelieving countrymen.

We have reason to conclude thus, if we consider that the same prejudices, which obstructed their conviction from _some_ confessed miracles, would not have given way to _more_. We have an example in the other unbelieving Jews, especially in the rulers of that people, who, the more and greater miracles they saw performed by Jesus, were the more hardened in their unbelief, and the more exasperated against him. They even give it as a reason for their vindictive prosecution of him, that he _did_, and _was doing many miracles_[149].

Taking the matter then in this light, what other effect could a waste of miracles have had, but to heap guilt and vengeance upon their heads? By leaving these perverse people to themselves, perhaps their prejudices might subside, and they might yield in time to the evidence they already had, or they might submit to other evidence, which they should collect for themselves hereafter. To have irritated their prejudices, now, by further miracles, might have fixed them absolutely in unbelief.

This conclusion becomes the more probable, if we admit the pretensions of Jesus: For then he may be supposed to have certainly foreseen the present impracticability of converting these men, and to have restrained his power before them, on that account. But I am now arguing with those, who make this conduct an objection to his pretensions. I offer it therefore as a conclusion only very probable from the nature of the thing, that his _not doing many miracles_ before his unbelieving countrymen, was, among other motives, from _a principle of mercy and kindness to them_. At least, the contrary, I think, cannot be affirmed with any shew or colour of reason.

But whatever kindness our Lord might have for these men, his continuing to work more miracles among them, under the present circumstances, would have been improper, because

III. In the next place (and this is my _third_ answer to the objection) _this conduct would have opposed, and tended directly to defeat, the general end and success of his ministry_.

The proper END of his ministry was to preach salvation to the Jews, and to give them such evidence of his being the Messiah, as was sufficient to their conviction. When he had done this in one place, if no very important considerations induced his longer stay, he was to proceed to another. This was so essential a part of his office, that it seems not to have been forgotten, even when there was no peculiar complaint of _unbelief_, in those with whom he had resided. For when the people of another place, of more _faith_, as it should seem, _came to him, and_ would have _stayed him, that he should not depart from them_, He refused to comply with them, and _said, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also, for_ THEREFORE AM I SENT[150].

This then was the end of his ministry. He was to preach the word; but was not obliged to see that it took effect, or to wait the success of it. How repugnant then had it been to this end, to waste unnecessary time and power on unbelieving Nazareth, when so many other cities, and those better disposed, claimed their share of each!

But, further, the dispositions of these people towards him were such, as seemed likely, not only to retard and interrupt, but totally to _prevent_ the execution of his ministry. They would either have found means, had he continued longer with them, to deliver him into the hands of the Jewish rulers, or by some act of violence would have taken away his life. This appears from the rage with which they drove him out of their city, and from their purpose, as St. Luke relates the story, to _cast him down headlong from the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built_[151]. So that his attempt to convert them by more miracles, might have put an untimely end to his ministry, when it was now but little more than begun. And, though this event might at any time have been prevented by an exertion of his miraculous power, and without doubt would have been prevented in that manner, had the conjuncture made it necessary; yet this was no reason for his exposing himself to that danger, since, as we before observed, miracles are not to be expected or employed, where the end in view may be accomplished by human means. Accordingly, our Saviour consulted his own safety on all occasions during the course of his ministry, by every prudential method: And when he afterwards armed his disciples with the power of working miracles, he prescribed the same conduct to them, and, when they found themselves _persecuted in one city_, bade them _flee to another_[152]. It is generally thought, indeed, that nothing but a miracle rescued him out of the hands of the enraged people of Nazareth. If so, his danger among them must have been extreme, and shews the necessity of his removing from them. However, if this last miracle was wrought, it was one more added to the number of those he had worked in that city, and, like all the rest, was lost upon it. On the whole, it appears certain then, that the _unbelief_ of these Nazarenes was a just reason for Christ’s _not doing many miracles among them_, since the opposite conduct would have tended _to defeat the end and execution of his general office_.

Still, the most direct and convincing answer to the objection is behind: For,

IV. Lastly, I observe that Jesus _did not many miracles_ before the unbelieving men of Nazareth, _because_ such a display of his power would have _been contrary to a general rule of conduct, which he prescribed to himself, and that, on the highest reason_.

This rule was, _not to work a miracle upon them, or for them, who were deficient in faith_: By which term, _faith_, I do not mean a grounded faith in him, as the Messiah, (for that could only be produced originally by miracles) but such an honesty and probity of mind as might dispose them to believe on the evidence of miracles. It was in this case, as in that of _Parables, to him only who hath, more was given_. And therefore the first question be put to those, who repaired to him for a miraculous relief of their necessities, was, _Do Ye believe?_ Are ye withheld by no fixed and willful prejudices from supposing that one, coming to you under the character of the Messiah, is empowered to do this for you, or from yielding to its evidence, when it is done? This was so indispensable a rule with him, that St. Mark, in relating this adventure at Nazareth, goes so far as to say that he COULD NOT DO many mighty works there because of their unbelief[153]. The meaning of which is, that there was, no _natural_ indeed, but a _moral_ impossibility of his working more miracles there; that is, he _could not do it_, consistently with the general principles, on which he acted.

And that these principles were founded in _the best reason_, no man can doubt who reflects, that the highest possible favour, which can be conferred on man, that is, a miracle wrought for his salvation, reasonably supposes some degree of desert, some prior dispositions to profit by it; who reflects farther, that, where such a preparation of mind is not, the miracle is thrown away; nay, worse than that, can only serve to the hurt and condemnation of that person, on whom, or for whom it is performed.

Men have a strange notion, that when God intends to convince any one by the evidence of miracles, he should repeat and enforce that evidence, till it take effect, whether we will or not; nay, that the most obstinate and determined infidelity is only a stronger reason for his contending with it. But this is a very presumptuous, as well as injurious, conception of the divine nature: It is presumptuous in the highest degree, because it supposes that we have a right to prescribe terms to infinite power and wisdom: It is greatly injurious to the Supreme Being, because it supposes that he has no regard to the moral worth of his creatures, or even to any reasonable end, in the wonders he does for them. The Scriptures represent this matter in another light: they require something, where much is given; they expect from us to _have_, before we receive; they suppose us in short to be moral agents, and not machines. And our Lord himself, speaking in the proverbial language of the Jews, gives it as a special command to his Disciples, _Not to cast that which is holy unto dogs, not to cast their pearls before swine_[154]. All this is agreeable to our best notions of the divine wisdom and goodness, as well as to the usual course of God’s providence; and therefore on this footing only the conduct of Jesus towards the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth is abundantly justified.

To draw to a point, then, the substance of what has been said. To the question, _why Jesus did not more miracles, before the unbelieving?_ We reply, That such conduct was not necessary to the end of miracles, which was to afford a reasonable conviction—that it was not likely to answer any good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful to such unbelievers—that it tended to defeat the design and success of Christ’s ministry, by narrowing the sphere, of shortening the term of it—that, lastly and chiefly, it was unreasonable in itself, and contrary to the general scheme and order of God’s moral government.

Let no man then abuse himself with foolish imaginations, as if Christ was wanting in that which became his office and mission; still less, as if he acted from any caprice, or unconcern for the souls of men, in not forcing their belief; but least of all, as if his pretensions had any thing to fear from the little faith of those to whom he addressed himself, and could only prevail with the weak and credulous, with those who were unable or indisposed to scrutinize his miracles. Even this last insinuation has been made, not only without grounds, but against the fullest evidence; the miracles of Jesus having been numerous, public, illustrious, and even acknowledged, at least not convicted of imposture, by his bitterest enemies, by those who were most active and most able to examine into the truth and reality of them.

With regard to the miracles in question, let us be so ingenuous as to confess, that, if these were necessary to announce his office and character to the men of Nazareth, more than these were unnecessary, and that their unbelief affords the best grounds to conclude, that they were so. Consider too, that, if no reasons had occurred to us for this conduct, it could not certainly appear that it was unreasonable. When we know, in fact, what the method of God’s dealing with mankind has been, in any instance, we may be able perhaps to discern good reasons for it. But we can seldom affirm with any shew of reason, from any preconceptions or general speculations of our own, what it should or must be. Here we are manifestly out of our depth, and cannot stir a step without the hazard of absurdity or impiety.

If we have reason to admit the divine authority of our Religion, whatever conduct it ascribes to Jesus, must be fit and right, however impenetrable to us. If we admit it not, our concern is to see that we have reason for not admitting it. This matter is to be tried by the evidence given of that authority only, I mean by the external proofs, and historic testimony, on which it rests. When this is done, no slight cavils of reason, no fanciful suspicions, no plausible objections, nor any thing else but the most obvious contradiction in something it asserts to the clearest dictates of the human understanding (which no man has ever yet found) can possibly shake, or so much as affect, that authority.

In the present case, we have seen how entirely groundless the objection is to Christ’s conduct at Nazareth. But if this objection could not have been answered, nothing had followed but a conviction of our ignorance. It might still be true (as we now see it to be), that Jesus acted agreeably to his divine character _in not doing many miracles_ before the people of Nazareth, _because of their unbelief_.

SERMON XL.

PREACHED MAY 23, 1773.

2 COR. iv. 5.

_We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord._

We may consider these words, either as an _admonition_ to the ministers of the Gospel, _To preach not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_; or simply as a _fact_, which St. Paul asserts of himself and the other Apostles, _That they preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_.

In either sense, the words are instructive; but I take them in the latter sense, only. I would confirm and illustrate this assumed fact: and then employ it as a medium to prove the divine authority of the sacred writings. If it be true, _that the Apostles preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_, it will, perhaps, be seen to follow, _That therefore they preached not from their own private suggestions, but by the direction of the spirit of God_.

The assertion of the Text is, indeed, general, and to this effect, “That a number of persons, who were employed to convert the world to the Religion of Jesus, did, in the tenour of their lives and the course of their ministry, pay no regard to their own interests of any kind, and were only intent on the due discharge of their commission.”

But the subject, in that extent, is too large for a discourse of this nature. What I would offer to your consideration, is ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of that indifference which the Apostles shewed to their own interests, I mean, _Their total disregard of human applause in preaching the Gospel_.

In this restrained sense of the words, men may be said _to preach themselves_, in TWO respects: When they shew a solicitude to set themselves forth with advantage: 1. as to their MORAL character. And 2. as to their INTELLECTUAL.

I. When men would give an advantageous idea of their _moral character_, they usually express this design, either, 1. _By representing or insinuating their superior worth and virtue_: Or, 2. _By suppressing or palliating what may render it suspected_: Or, 3. lastly, _By dwelling on such topics, and in such a manner, as may give occasion to others to think well of their moral qualities_.

Let us try the Apostolic writings by each of these marks.

1. The first way that men take to illustrate their _moral character_, is, _By representing, or insinuating their worth and virtue, on all occasions_.

Consider those apologists for themselves, who have left us memoirs of their own lives. You will find, in most of these, an ambitious display of those moral virtues, by which they desire to be distinguished. They lose no opportunity of setting forth the purity of their designs, and the integrity of their practice. The rest, may do this with less pomp and affectation: they may preserve a modesty in the language, and a decent reserve in the air and cast, of their narration. Still, the same purpose is discoverable in all these writers, whether they openly proclaim, or nicely suggest and insinuate their own importance. When men are actuated with a strong desire of appearing in the fairest light to others, it unavoidably breaks out in some shape or other, and all the indirect ways of address cannot conceal it from the intelligent observer.

We have a great example in two, the most extraordinary persons of the pagan world, I mean, XENOPHON, and JULIUS CÆSAR. These admired men thought fit to record their own acts and atchievements; and have done it with that air of neglect and unpretending simplicity, which has been the wonder of mankind. Yet, through all this apparent indifference, every one sees the real drift of these elaborate volumes: every one sees, that they are composed in such a way as to excite the highest opinion, not of their ability in the art of war only, but of the justice, generosity, benevolence, in short, the moral qualities of their respective authors. It evidently appears that they designed to be their own panegyrists; though none but such men could have executed that design, in so inoffensive and successful a manner.

But now, if we turn to the sacred writers, we shall find no traces of their _preaching themselves_, in this respect. These plain fishermen tell their story unambitiously, and without art; or, if we call it art, it is such an one as Greece and Rome had never been able to put in practice. No exaggerations of what may be thought praise-worthy in themselves: no oblique encomiums on their own best qualities or actions: no complacent airs in the recital of what may reflect honour on their own characters: no studied reserve and refinement in the turn and language of their history.

If there be any virtue, which we may suppose them more than commonly anxious to arrogate to themselves, any moral quality, in which they would shine out to the observation of others, what more likely than an unshaken fidelity to their Master? that Master, whom they made it their glory, their sole glory, as the Text speaks, _to preach_? Yet they are so far from respecting their own credit in this particular, that they relate their own infirmities and miscarriages; they acknowledge how wavering and precarious their _faith_ was; nay, they tell us that, in his last distresses, _they all forsook him, and fled_[155].

2. This last circumstance reminds us of the next artifice which men employ to set off their moral character, _that of suppressing or palliating whatever may render it suspected_.

As accomplished persons, as the great men, before mentioned, were, can we doubt that many exceptionable steps were taken by them in the affairs, they managed: that, on some occasions, their prudence failed them, and their virtue, on others; that their counsels and measures were conducted, at times, with too little honesty, or too much passion? Yet, you will in vain look for any thing of this sort in their large and particular histories. All is candid and fair, judicious and well advised: every thing speaks the virtuous man, and able commander. The obnoxious passages are either suppressed, or they are turned in such a way as to do honour to their Relaters.

Or, take another instance. When Cicero had offended against the capital law of his moral code, that, which enjoined the love of his country, first, by his backwardness to join the camp of Pompey, and, afterwards, by his prompt submission to the tyranny of Cæsar, What is the conduct of the illustrious Roman patriot, on this pressing occasion? Does he frankly condemn these false steps, or does he content himself with a simple relation of them? Neither of these things: He softens and disguises the truth; he employs all his wit and eloquence to palliate this inglorious desertion of his principles, to himself and others.

I might add many other examples. But ye see, in these, a striking contrast to the ingenuity of the sacred writers. They study no arts of evasion or concealment. They proclaim their own faults, and even vices, to all the world. One, acknowledges himself to have been a furious bigot, a persecutor, and blasphemer[156]: Another, relates his own cowardice, ingratitude, and treachery[157]. There is nothing like a concert between them to cover each other’s defects: They expose the vindictive zeal of one[158]; the intolerant spirit of others[159]; the selfish intrigues of all[160]. In a word, they give up their moral character to the scorn and censure of their readers, and appear solicitous for nothing but the honour of their Master—_They preach not themselves, but the Lord Jesus Christ_.

But ye will say, this apparent candour was the most consummate art; and that they confessed some obnoxious passages in their lives, to procure themselves credit in other instances. This, no doubt, is sometimes the case with artful writers and speakers: But then only, when small defects and miscarriages are confessed; or, when the facts are too notorious to be dissembled; or, if perhaps they confess such things of themselves, as are highly blameable, and might otherwise have been concealed, they do it to gain the praise of a more than ordinary frankness and ingenuity, they apparently make a matter of vanity, even of that confession[161]. The case is much otherwise with the preachers of Jesus. They scruple not to tax themselves with the most odious vices; and these too, many times of such a nature as shews, they might well have been kept secret from all the world; while yet the discovery is made in such a way, that suspicion itself cannot charge them with the design of drawing any credit to themselves from it.

Hitherto, we have considered how many men may contrive to celebrate or insinuate their own virtues, to suppress or disguise their own vices, in narratives or memorials of their lives; and how free the Apostles are from the suspicion of doing either. But the same design may be prosecuted in writings of another sort: and we have writings of another sort from the hands of the Apostles. I observe then

3. That, when writers are studious of their own fame, they find means, in any moral or historic work, though themselves be not the professed subject of it, to do honour to their own character, _by dwelling on such topics, and in such a manner, as may give occasion to others to think well of their moral qualities_.

They declaim, perhaps, with much heat against certain vices, or expatiate with much complacency on certain virtues; or, they labour some disgraceful portraits of bad men, and draw their favoured characters with all the heightenings of panegyrick: And who will suppose, after this specimen of their zeal, that they themselves are not adorned with those good qualities, which they so studiously recommend, or are not exempt from those bad ones, which they so industriously expose? The artifice is so common, that we have it played upon us every day; and yet so imposing, that it constantly succeeds with us. How many popular characters does every one call to mind, that have no foundation but in this favourable prejudice! But let me carry your thoughts back to ancient times, and fix them on far higher instances. Who that reads the moral prefaces and digressions of the historian SALLUST, but must imagine the author to have been a model of ancient frugality and austere manners? And who that looks into the philosopher SENECA, and finds him all on fire in celebrating some distinguished characters, and exposing some detested ones, but will conclude the writer to have been himself accomplished in all virtue?

I make no enquiry, at present, into the real characters of these illustrious persons: I pass no judgment on the real merit of their books. Their zeal might be an honest one; and the form of their writings might be owing to that zeal. But this, I observe, that the form itself is well suited to the purpose of those who would _preach themselves_; and that the sacred writers have not thought fit to adopt this method.

Their books indeed are full of moral sentences and moral precepts (for they are teachers of morality by profession); but short, and simple; and though earnestly enforced, not ostentatiously displayed. The historic part of their writings is wonderful for its calmness, I had almost said, insensibility. No attempt to colour their good or bad characters. Even the transcendant virtues of their Master are left to be collected rather from the simplest exposition of what he said and did, than from any formal representation of them: And, what is stranger still, his betrayers and murderers are loaded with no invective, nor set to scorn in any odious lights[162]. These divine men are superior to the prejudices even of virtue itself; and have so little thought of deriving a vanity from their own honest feelings, that we are almost left in doubt, whether they were, indeed, actuated by them.

II. Thus much for the indifference of the sacred writers to their moral character: Let us now see whether they are more concerned for their INTELLECTUAL.

There are two ways which men take to display their mental qualities: 1. _By labouring to make appear an extraordinary acuteness of understanding_: And 2. _By aiming at the praise of extraordinary wit and eloquence_.

It is superfluous to observe to you how these two characters predominate in all the writings and speeches of uninspired men. Consider, if there be one exception in all those whom the world most approves and admires: Consider, if there be not evident symptoms of this vanity in every single writer or speaker, that has undertaken to instruct or reform mankind. I deny not, that many of these have been persons of great modesty and distinguished virtue: Yet they never lose sight of their own mental accomplishments; they never forget, under some shape or other, in this respect, to _preach themselves_. Even He, who now so freely censures this infirmity in others, is, perhaps, at the instant, an example of it, himself.

Let us see, then, if _the preachers of the Gospel_ have the singular prerogative to stand clear of this general imputation.

1. They certainly lay no claim to any superior quickness of understanding. On the contrary, they relate many circumstances, which clearly imply their own dulness and inapprehension. They acquaint us with the gross mistakes, they were apt to fall into, in their conversations with their Master; they are at a loss to comprehend his parables, nay to look beyond the literal sense of the plainest figures; they even record the reproaches which Jesus made to them on these occasions.

But this slowness of conception, it will be said, was in their early unenlightened state, and was, perhaps, affected by them to do honour to their subsequent illuminations. Be it so. But how do these illuminated men employ the divine light, that was imparted to them? In advancing curious theories in Morals, or in framing subtle Metaphysical systems? Do they affect a philosophic depth or accuracy in their researches into human nature, or a superior penetration in their reasonings about spiritual things? Do they shine in paradoxes? or strike with quaint aphorisms? Do they entertain us with exquisite positions, or remote conclusions? Nothing of all this. What they teach of moral and divine things, is with the air of men, not who make discoveries, but who deliver known and familiar truths. They tell us many things, which we knew not before: But they tell them as matters of divine commission, not of their own collection or investigation. And, for the rest, they presume not to speculate upon them, at all.

Indeed, the general subject of their discourses was such, as gave no scope to the exercise, and afforded no gratification to the pride, of Reason. They publish to the world a matter of fact, of which they were eye-witnesses; they attest the death and resurrection of Jesus, and preach remission of sins in his name. These were the points _they witnessed both to small and great; saying none other things than those, which they had seen and heard, and which the Prophets and Moses did say come to pass_[163]. Is there any thing in such a doctrine, as this, that looks like _preaching themselves_? Can it be thought that such teachers had an eye to the credit of their own abilities, or that they meant to advance the reputation of their own understandings above that of other men?

2. Still less reason is there to charge this ambition on their manner of preaching, or to imagine that they sought the fame of ingenuity from the terms in which they conveyed their instructions to mankind. If the substance of their doctrine was plain facts, their language was that of plain men. They spake not _with the enticing words of man’s wisdom_; scarcely with the ordinary propriety, certainly, not with what is called the purity and elegance, of their tongue.

But the fact is not disputed, rather is objected to them by such as question their inspiration (with what reason, we shall presently see); so that I may fairly conclude, that such men could have no purpose to recommend themselves by the arts of speaking, or, that, with regard to the praise of wit and eloquence, they could not possibly mean to _preach themselves_.

Not let it be said, that this unornamented style of preaching was the effect of their ignorance, and inability to reach the graces of a juster manner. For, besides that it is no new thing for men to affect what they have no talents for, it is certain that ONE at least of the Apostles, He, whose province it was to convert the Gentile world, long since enamoured of the study of eloquence, and who, of all the Apostles, wrote most, it is certain, I say, that this great man was not disqualified by a want of parts or learning, from pretending to this prize of eloquence, if his ambition had condescended to it.

III. It appears then, with a reasonable degree of evidence, that the writers of the New Testament had no regard _to themselves_, that is, to the reputation either of their Moral or Intellectual virtues, in composing those books. The fact, as singular as it is, seems well established: And I draw this interesting conclusion from it, _That, therefore, they preached, not from their own private suggestions, but by the direction of the Holy Spirit_.

This conclusion follows undeniably from that fact. For, if such a number of persons, of different tempers, educations, and professions, could be so disinterested as to overlook their own credit in a point, which all other men have so exceedingly at heart, and which no other men, nay which no other single man has ever been able to give up; and that too, when they were teaching a divine religion, and might therefore seem to have a decent pretence for assuming all sorts of merit to themselves; if this, I say, be a certain fact, what can we conclude, but that the Spirit of God, to whose enlightening influences they ascribed their doctrine, over-ruled their natural self-love in the manner of preaching it, and that _these holy men spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_?

To return then to the Text, and to conclude. _We preach not ourselves_—said St. Paul, in his own name and that of the other Apostles—_We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_. The writings of these men are still extant; and bear the fullest testimony to the truth of what they assert. This, then, among many others, is an intrinsic character, impressed on those writings, of their divine original. It may be regarded, as a standing miracle, which, as oft as we revolve and consider them, speaks aloud, as in a voice from Heaven, that the Scriptures, they have left us, are the _word and work of God_.

If their uninspired successors in the ministry of the word be unable to copy so bright an example of humility and self-denial, forgive them this defect, or impute it, if you will, to natural vanity and unsubdued self-love. But, when ye chance to observe this infirmity in others, forget not to say to yourselves, that this high privilege of _preaching not themselves_ was reserved to the Evangelists and Apostles only, to dignify their character; and to excite, confirm, and support our faith; in a word, to manifest to all the world, in the very frame and texture of the sacred Oracles, that they were, indeed, dictated by the Spirit of God.

SERMON XLI.

PREACHED DECEMBER 15, 1771.

MATTH. xi. 5.

_The Poor have the Gospel preached unto them._

Many circumstances, attending the Gospel of Jesus, are such, as we should not previously have expected: Yet, when duly considered, they fully approve themselves to our best reason.

We have a memorable instance, in the Text. Among other marks, by which it pleased our blessed Lord to authenticate his mission, one was, _That the Poor had the Gospel preached unto them. Go_, (says he to the disciples of John the Baptist, who had sent them to know of Jesus, whether he were indeed the Messiah) _Go, and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and_ THE POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED UNTO THEM.

We are surprized, perhaps, on the first mention of these words, to find this last circumstance put upon a level with the rest, even with that greatest of all miracles, _the raising of the dead to life_. We may not immediately apprehend, why the _Poor_ should be thus considered by the Saviour of the world; or how the truth of his pretensions comes to be concerned in this treatment of them. But, upon inquiry, we shall find there were some important reasons which determined our Lord to this conduct, and which made that conduct, in a peculiar manner, expressive of his person and office.

FIRST, This character was directly applied to the Messiah, in the ancient prophecies. Our Lord himself, in the text, quotes the very words of Isaiah: So that, _in preaching the Gospel to the Poor_, he fulfilled that prediction, and so far corresponded to the character, which the word of prophecy had given of the Messiah.

But this circumstance, we may suppose, would have been no part of the Messiah’s character, but for reasons which made it fit and right, that He should be thus distinguished. Let us, further, inquire, then,

SECONDLY, what those reasons, probably were; only premising one word, to ascertain the objects, both of the prophecy, and of our Lord’s charitable attention.