that are lost_: and who, that rejects the Gospel, but must tremble for
himself, when his REASON, nay his VIRTUE, may be the instrument of his
ruin?
SERMON XXXVI.
PREACHED NOVEMBER 13, 1774.
1 PETER iii. 15.
_—Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh You a reason
of the hope, that is in You, with meekness and fear._
These words have been often and justly quoted to prove the rational
genius of our religion: but they have sometimes been quoted to prove
much more, “The obligation, that Christians are under, to justify their
religion, in the way of argument, against all opposers, and to satisfy
all the difficulties and objections, that can be brought against it.” A
magnificent pretension! but surely without authority from the text, as I
shall briefly shew, by enquiring,
1. Who the persons are, to whom this direction is given:
2. What that _hope_ is, _which is in them_, and concerning which they are
supposed to be interrogated: And therefore
3. Lastly, what the proper _answer_, or apology must be, of those
persons, when required to give a reason of such hope.
The resolution of these questions will afford us a clear insight into the
meaning of the text: and then we shall be enabled to make some pertinent
and useful reflexions upon it.
1. St. Peter addresses himself to _the elect strangers scattered
throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia_—i. e. most
probably, to Jewish Christians, dispersed through these countries, in
which they were properly _strangers_; though, in some sense, all good
men are strangers and sojourners on earth, and therefore the use of this
term may not necessarily exclude such Heathen converts to the faith,
as lived in those quarters. But whatever be the precise meaning of the
term, it is clear, that all persons of this general denomination, or all
the _stranger_ Christians, residing in the places, here mentioned, are,
without distinction, concerned in this catholic epistle. There is not a
word that implies any difference of age, or sex, or education, or rank:
not the least regard is had to the office of some, or the qualifications
of others: all indiscriminately, of the class specified, who had
knowledge and understanding enough to profess themselves Christians, are
the objects of the Apostle’s address: and of these, universally, is the
requisition made, that they be _ready always to give an answer to every
man, that asketh a reason of the hope that is in them_. But what then
2. Is that _Hope_, of which all such persons were expected and required
to render a reason? Plainly the general hope of Christians, the hope of
eternal life, the hope of a resurrection from the dead, the blessed hope,
in short, of salvation through Jesus Christ.
The context shews, that it was this hope, and this only, of which they
were to give an account. For, in the preceding verse, the Apostle had
been speaking of the trials which they should undergo for the sake of
their religion. Possibly, they were, then, in a state of persecution;
or, it was foreseen that they soon would be in that state. _But and if
ye suffer, says he, for righteousness sake, happy are ye._ Why? because
they knew the _hope_ of their calling, and the ample recompense that
would be made them in a future life for all such sufferings. Therefore,
he advises that they should always have this precious hope present to
them, and well established in their minds: nay, and that, for their own
better support in the midst of their sufferings, and for the vindication
of themselves to others, their persecutors, perhaps, who might ask on
what grounds they exposed themselves to such torments, they should have
in readiness an _answer_, or apology for their own conduct, setting forth
the reason they had to confide in that hope; from which reason it would
appear that they acted, as became prudent men, and not as blind, frantic
enthusiasts.
It being now seen, to whom the text is directed, and what the _hope_,
under consideration, is, we have no difficulty in answering
3. The last question, “What the proper _answer_ might, or rather must be,
of such persons, when required to give a reason of such hope?”
For what other answer could they give (and this they all might give),
than that their Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, by whom they had been
encouraged to entertain this hope, had shewn himself well able to make
it good by his own resurrection? They might say, in the words of the
Apostle Paul (who apologized for himself to the Athenians, in like
circumstances), We therefore think ourselves happy in suffering for
righteousness sake,—_because God hath appointed a day in the which he
will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained;
whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him
from the dead_[107].
This was an obvious reason of the _hope, that was in them_, and level
to all capacities. It was, also, a sufficient reason, if it was any
at all, that is, if the fact alleged be true; and, that it was so,
they might appeal to the testimony of those, who had seen the Lord and
conversed with him, after his resurrection; nay, whom themselves had seen
confirming that testimony _by signs and wonders_, done in the name of
Jesus.
We see, then, what is the true and full meaning of the text. The Apostle
exhorts those, to whom he writes, all of them, the simpler, as well as
more informed, to bear in mind the end of their religion, EVERLASTING
LIFE; and the grounds, on which they expected it, the WORD of their
divine MASTER, _confirmed to them by them that heared him_[108], and by
his rising from the dead.
And now we are at liberty to make some reflexions on the text, which may
be useful and instructive to us.
And, first, I observe, as most others have done, that Christians are
allowed and encouraged to reason on the subject of their religion, and
to build their faith on conviction. For the Apostle’s advice is, not to
decline the way of argument, but to use such arguments as are cogent and
satisfactory. And in this free exercise of the understanding, which is
permitted, or rather enjoined to all Christians, the manly genius of our
religion is seen, and by it is distinguished from that of every blind and
servile superstition. But then,
Secondly, I observe, that this work of reason is enjoined, only, with
regard to _the hope, that is in us_, that is, to the end and scope of
Christianity, and to the authority on which it rests; in other words,
with regard to the EVIDENCES of this Religion.
It is true, these evidences are a different thing to different persons,
according to their respective situations. To the primitive Christians,
such as those to whom the exhortation of the text is addressed, it was
evidence sufficient, “That they had the great facts of the Gospel,
especially that decisive fact, the resurrection of Christ, reported
to them by persons, who had been eye-witnesses of those extraordinary
transactions, or, who had heared them, at least, from eye-witnesses, and
were endowed, besides, with the power of working miracles in confirmation
of their testimony.” For in those days, it is to be observed, they, who
were commissioned to plant the Gospel in the world, _went forth, and
preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word
with signs following_[109].
This state of things continued through what is called the Apostolic
Age, and perhaps longer, during which time it was easy for the plainest
Christian to give such an _answer_, to these who required a reason of
_the hope that was in him_, as was perfectly satisfactory. But, when
the Gospels were admitted by the faithful, as authentic accounts of
their Master’s history and doctrine, and when the Apostles had further
drawn out and explained the principles and proofs of Christianity in
their several writings, that is, when the Canon of the New Testament
was completed, and generally received (all which was done within the
first century from the Christian æra), Then the appeal lay to these
scriptures, and the ground of a Christian’s persuasion was, the authority
of the inspired writers. And now, if believers were asked the reason of
_the hope that was in them_, the answer was, “That so it was written in
books, which were in all hands, and allowed by all to contain nothing but
infallible truth.” Nor could the force of this answer be disputed, when
the memory of certain facts was recent, when the places where, and the
person to whom, or for whose use the sacred books were written, could be
pointed out, and when the writers of them were known, by the miracles
wrought by them, to have been under the direction of the Holy Ghost.
On the conviction, which this apology carried with it, the world became
Christian. But in process of time, and after a course of many ages,
it might be doubted whether those books had been transmitted pure and
uncorrupted. And under these circumstances the _answer_, being somewhat
enlarged, stands thus: “That the hope of a Christian is founded on
the authority of the sacred canon, composed by inspired men, as was
universally allowed in the first ages of Christianity, and not materially
altered, as we have reason to believe, to this day.”
The answer given in these three periods, is, you see, very general,
because the question is, on what grounds of reason a plain man could
justify his profession of Christianity: and the answer, in each case, is
a proper one, and of real weight. But the answer of knowing and skilful
men is more particular, may indeed be infinitely varied and extended
according to the abilities of the answerer; and, from such minute,
and laboured apologies much additional light and conviction hath been
derived. Still you see the subject of inquiry, is, the EVIDENCES of
Christianity, how different soever in different ages, and in the view
of different persons in the same age. All that unbelievers have a right
to ask, is, on what grounds we affirm the truth and divinity of our
religion: and the sole duty which the text imposes upon us, is to satisfy
that question. Their curiosity, and our labour, should not, at least
needs not, be extended beyond these bounds. But
Thirdly, what if inquisitive men should go farther, and, when they have
set forth the evidences of Christianity to their own satisfaction, and
that of others, should proceed to give us a _rationale_ of its doctrines:
Would not their pains be useful, as tending very much to promote the
honour of our divine religion?
Perhaps, they might, if _soberly_ employed and if inquirers would set out
with a resolution of stopping in their curious researches, when they had
no ideas, or no clear or distinct ones.
But, even with this restriction, _two_ things are, further, to be
observed. ONE is, that no Christian is bound to make this solicitous
inquiry into the doctrinal, no, nor into the moral part of the Gospel.
It is enough that his faith and life be regulated by its doctrines and
precepts, whether he do, or do not, see the grounds in reason, on which
they stand. Nay, possibly his conduct is then most acceptable, when he
looks no farther than to the authority of the Gospel; agreeably to that
well-known decision of our Lord himself—_blessed is he, who hath not
seen, and yet hath believed_: not, that he expects any man to believe or
to obey him, without reason: but he most approves the ingenuous turn of
that man’s mind, who admits his divine mission, on a sufficient indeed,
but not the highest, degree of evidence; and much more, therefore, who
yields obedience to his laws, acknowledged on such evidence to be divine,
without inquiring further into the reasons of them. Indeed, to what
purpose do I scrupulously ask a reason of that, which I already know
to be just and fit, because reasonably admitted to proceed from divine
authority?
The OTHER observation I would make, is, That, if after the most diligent
inquiry, we should not, yet, be able to penetrate the reasons of many
things, or to give ourselves entire satisfaction about them, this
unacceptable experience should not in the least affect our belief
and esteem of the Gospel. For all that follows from such disappointed
curiosity is only this, That we are weak and blind; and not that the
things themselves are either false or unreasonable. Our duty, therefore,
is to confide in the _revealed word_; not questioning its authority,
or torturing its language; but accepting with thankfulness, what we do
understand, and with reverence, what we do not.
When these two conditions are inviolably observed, the way of minute
inquiry into the doctrines of Christianity, so far forth as they are the
objects of inquiry, at all, may be usefully and commendably employed. For
then none but men of leisure and ability will think themselves concerned
in making such inquiry: and even these, if they should not obtain all the
satisfaction they propose to themselves, will neither attempt to disturb
the faith of others, nor suffer their own faith to be disturbed by their
curious speculations. Still: when learned men are taken up in those
profound inquiries, and seem most confident that they have penetrated
far into the reasons of many things which are kept secret from others,
they should especially remember (and that is the Fourth, and _last_
observation I shall make on the text), to present their _answer_ or
apology to mankind, _with meekness and fear_.
1. With MEEKNESS, or a soft and gentle spirit, breathing in words,
neither passionate, nor assuming; that so they may gain as many, and
exasperate as few, as they can. This was a caution more than commonly
necessary to the first apologists for Christianity, who had to plead
its cause at the tribunal of Kings, at that time, their enemies and
persecutors. But the rule is always a good one to be observed by the
advocates of the Gospel, who never serve it better, than when its prime
virtue, CHARITY, corrects, or rather consecrates, their zeal.
2. The _reason of the hope, that is in them_, should, also, be given
_with_ FEAR: that is, not only with a _fear_ of giving needless offence
to those, to whom they address their apology, but chiefly with a
_reverential awe_ of that transcendantly great Being, whose ways they
desire to contemplate, and some part of whose councils it is their
ambition to unfold. For, when we speak of God, farther than we are
authorized by himself to speak, we are in constant danger of ascribing to
him our own weaknesses, and of degrading his ineffable wisdom, when we
think to exalt it most.
Such reason there is, even when we apologize for the truth of God, to do
it _with meekness and fear_.
To conclude: Religious inquiries, when thus conducted (and only then)
are commendable and useful. They exercise our best faculties on the
noblest subjects: They may be the means of bringing some to the kingdom
of God, and they can alienate none from it. Or, whatever the merit and
the success of these inquiries may be, the authors of them will have
the satisfaction of knowing, that they have inquired in a right manner;
and, that, how little soever their UNDERSTANDINGS have _profited_ the
Almighty[110], they have honoured Him with the noblest sacrifice, which a
mortal can offer to his Maker, that of an HUMBLE AND SUBMISSIVE SPIRIT.
SERMON XXXVII.
PREACHED FEBRUARY 4, 1770.
JOHN vii. 46.
_Never man spake like this man._
If by speaking, be here meant what is called _fine_ speaking, or
a discourse artificially composed according to the rules of human
eloquence, the subject is unworthy of this place, and the praise,
infinitely disproportioned to the divine character of Jesus. A pagan
philosopher, nay, and a Christian preacher, might haply so far forget
himself, as to affect the credit of _fine speaking_; or, his followers
might think to honour him by applauding this talent[111]: But the Son
of God spake with other views, and to nobler purposes; and his inspired
historians would not have condescended to make the panegyric of their
Master, from so trivial a distinction.
Let us see, then, to what the encomium of the text amounts; and what
those CIRCUMSTANCES are, in the discourses of Jesus, which give real
weight and dignity to the observation—_that never man spake like this
man_.
This will be an inquiry of use, and not of curiosity only; we shall find,
in the course of it, very much to confirm our faith, as well as to excite
our admiration.
I. The first particular, that strikes an attentive mind in considering
the discourses of Jesus, is the MATTER of them; the most important; and,
at the same time, the most extraordinary; of the utmost consequence to
mankind, and the most remote from all their natural apprehensions.
But, by the discourses of Jesus, so qualified, I mean chiefly those,
which are truly his own, and properly _Christian_: such as acquaint
us with the dignity of his person, and nature of his office; with the
purpose of his mission, and the manner in which that purpose was to be
effected.
His moral discourses, though they be divine too, yet, being intended,
for the most part, to deliver the religion of nature, or the religion of
Moses, in all its purity, may be thought to contain nothing more than
what human reason had, or might have discovered, or what the Law of God,
at least, had already revealed. Yet it may deserve to be mentioned as an
argument of his superiority to all other moral instructors, that HE ONLY
has delivered a doctrine of life and manners, free from all mixture of
error, and carried in some instances to a degree of perfection which, I
do not say Reason, but, no Doctor of reason ever prescribed; and that he
penetrated further into the true meaning of the Jewish Law, than any of
its expositors had ever done.
But, as I said, I confine myself to his _peculiar doctrines_, such
as constitute the substance of that religion, which we properly call
Christian.
And here, the weight of his doctrine must be felt by those persons who
reflect that, coming into a world overrun with vice and misery, he
proclaimed pardon and peace in this life, and everlasting happiness and
glory in the life to come, to all who with penitent hearts and true faith
turned to him. What Doctor, Philosopher, or Legislator _ever spake as He
spake_, on these important articles? What had Nature taught the Gentile
world? Some fine lessons of morality, indeed, which might direct their
lives for the future; but none that could set their minds at ease from
past guilt, none that could free their consciences from instinctive
terror, much less could erect their hopes to any assured prospect of
immortality. What had Moses taught the Jews? A divine religion, it is
true, but such as left them under the burthen of a painful and oppressive
ritual, in which the neglect of any one precept, or the irregular
performance of any, might shake their security; and of which, when
punctually observed, the reward was only some present ease or convenience
in this world. What was there in either institution, that could deliver
men from all doubt and uncertainty about their future condition, or that
could disarm and appease the universal guilt of mankind?
Let this then admonish us of what, from its familiarity, we are, now,
so prone to forget, the importance, which characterized the doctrine of
Jesus.
The _extraordinary nature_ of it equally appears; but will further
and chiefly be seen, if we attend to the means, by which this supreme
blessing is said to be conveyed, and effected.
That a divine person, divine in the highest sense of the word, should
descend from heaven and take our nature upon him; _the Heir of all
things_[112] should be content to appear _in the form of a servant_[113];
and, having _life in himself_[114], should chuse to suffer death; that,
by this astonishing humiliation, he should propose to effect an end,
equally astonishing, The salvation of a ruined world; that, being without
sin himself, he should offer himself a sacrifice for sin; that in virtue
of his all-atoning death, he should undertake to abolish death, and
open the gates of eternal life to the whole race of mortal man; that,
in this way, he should assume to be our _Wisdom and Righteousness_, our
_Sanctification and Redemption_[115]; These are the great things of
which Christ _spake_; these the amazing topics with which he filled his
discourses. And must we not conclude, that _he spake as never man spake_?
I do not, at present, urge the accomplishment of all these wonders. That
is a distinct consideration. But it must be allowed, that he _spake_ in
this tone, and to this effect. And did ever any man before him utter such
things? Did it ever enter into the heart of man to conceive such things?
which surely are enough to arrest our attention; to turn our thoughts on
the evidence, with which they are accompanied; and, till we admit the
force of that evidence, to convince us, at least, that such a speaker
as this, is eminently distinguished from all other speakers, that ever
addressed themselves to mankind. He discovered, on other occasions, no
defect of mind, or temper; nothing, that should lead us to suspect him of
weakness, or enthusiasm; And when such a person so speaks, the sublime
and extraordinary nature of his doctrine is no small presumption of its
truth.
II. Another circumstance that distinguishes the discourses of Jesus, is
the AUTHORITY, with which they were delivered. The people themselves
remarked this circumstance, and were astonished at it; _for he taught
them_, says the sacred historian, _as one who had authority, and not as
the Scribes_[116].
Interpreters differ in explaining what this _authority_ was; but it
consisted, very clearly, in these three things. 1. He taught mankind
without any degree of doubt and hesitation, with the air of one who knew
the truth of what he said, and was perfectly assured of all he spake.
_Verily, verily, I say to thee, we speak that we do know, and testify
that we have seen[117]._ 2. He taught his great lessons of morality and
religion, not as derived from the information of others, or from the
dictates of his own reason, but as immediately conveyed to him from the
source of light and truth, from God himself. _Whatsoever I speak, even
as the Father said to me, so I_ speak[118]. 3. Lastly, He delivered his
doctrine on very many occasions, as the proper author of it, as one
who had a right to propose the terms of Salvation, in his own name. I
_say unto You_—is the formulary, with which he prefaces his momentous
instructions. _He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life, and_
I _will raise him up at the last day_[119]. _Be thou faithful unto death,
and_ I _will give thee a crown of life_[120]. Nay, he goes so far as
to assert expressly, _that he hath life in himself, even as the Father
hath life in himself_[121]. And though he says, at the same time, that
he had this privilege given him by the Father, and though he declares,
elsewhere, that as the _Father had taught him, so he spake_[122];
yet there is no contradiction in these affirmations; for he tells us
expressly—_All things that the Father hath, are mine_[123]; _And I and
the Father are one_[124].
These three circumstances, taken together, constitute the proper
authority of Christ’s doctrine. It was the authority of one, who spake
from conviction; who spake by the special appointment of God the Father,
who even spake, by virtue of his own essential right, from himself, and
in his own name.