Jewish scribes; who explained their Law, as they could, by the precarious
traditions of their forefathers, and the uncertain glosses of their
celebrated Doctors: Compare it with that of the Gentile Philosophers; who
quibbled, by the help of a little logick or metaphysicks, on the nature
of God and the Soul; who advanced their doctrines of futurity, on the
credit of an old fable, or an old song; and even delivered their moral
lectures on the weak grounds of their fanciful or discordant systems; in
the way of negligent speculation, or, which was worse, of altercation and
dispute: Compare it, lastly, with that of all others, who, in antient or
modern times, have taken upon themselves to instruct mankind; and see, if
any of these ever assumed the exalted tone, or spake with the _authority_
of Jesus, of _the Carpenter’s Son_, as Julian and the followers of that
school affect to call him.
But high pretensions, you will say, prove nothing. Not much, indeed,
when destitute of their proper supports; yet so much, as to verify the
observation of the text—_that never man spake like this man_. And if they
prove thus much, they prove more; the necessity, or reasonableness, at
least, of examining whether these pretensions be well founded. For claims
of so extraordinary a nature, as they must needs awaken our curiosity,
so they may demand our belief. When a voice speaks, as from heaven, it
naturally turns our attention to that quarter; and, when it speaks in
_inimitable thunder_[125], it speaks, methinks, like itself, and in
accents that cannot well be misunderstood.
But our next observation will carry us further. For I make it
III. A third circumstance, in the character of Christ’s _speaking_, that
he expressed himself with more than mortal WISDOM, on many occasions,
when the malice and captious subtlety of his enemies put that wisdom to
its utmost test.
He gave early proofs of his wisdom, when, at the age of twelve years, he
reasoned with the Doctors in the temple, to such effect, _that all who
heared him, were astonished at his understanding and answers_[126].
These answers, indeed, are not recorded; but many others are, in the
course of his ministry; answers to nice, insidious, and concerted
questions of the ablest men among the Jews, in critical circumstances,
and on the most trying emergencies. And to these questions he always
replied with a presence of mind so unshaken, with a judgment so
infallible, with a dexterity and prudence so conciliating, and at the
same time with an integrity so pure and perfect, that no advantage could
in any degree be taken against him. His adversaries came again and again
to the charge; whom yet he repelled with so triumphant a superiority over
all the efforts of their wit and malice, that he forced them in the end,
_to marvel and hold their peace_[127]. His divine responses came out so
contrary to their hopes and their interests, that they were discouraged
and deterred from provoking any more of them—_they durst not ask him any
more questions_[128].
The limits of this discourse will not give room for a detailed account of
these questions and answers. But they are thick sown in the Gospels: And
ye will understand me to point more especially at those, that respected
his divine character, and kingly office[129]; in which conversations the
danger was, lest he should drop something that might be made a handle
against him before the Jewish Consistory, or the Roman Tribunals; while
yet he was not to betray his cause, or bely his pretensions. The danger
was instant, and, if he had fallen under it, must have been fatal. For,
in withdrawing his claim of being the Messiah, the _King of Israel_,
he must have owned himself an impostor; in asserting it, at this time,
clearly and openly, he would have given his enemies a pretence for
treating him, as a criminal of state; an imputation which could not
consist with the truth or dignity of his mission. He came into the
world to suffer death, indeed; but not as convicted of any crime, not
as colourably condemned by any legal sentence. His innocence was to be
conspicuous, and his honour unimpaired[130].
In this respect, then, it seems, as if it might be truly affirmed, that
_never man spake as this man_. And, if this much must be allowed, we are,
methinks, but a little way from a further conclusion, _That, therefore,
he spake by a divine spirit_.
If it be said, that this conclusion does not hold, _for that the same
faculties of the human mind, which make us capable of_ SEEING _this
wisdom, may have_ PRODUCED _it_, the ground of the observation is neither
likely, nor true. Not likely in the present instance, where the wisdom in
question appears to be exquisite and constant: qualities which we are not
accustomed to find united in the efforts of human wisdom. But neither,
in general, is the position true: For then, the power of perception and
invention would be the same; then, the divine intellect would be levelled
with the human; then, the wisdom of God himself, so far as it was
acknowledged and understood by us, would be our wisdom. Whereas, common
sense tells us, that to discover a truth and to apprehend it, to project
a measure, and to conceive the fitness of it, are two things[131]: And,
though men differ widely in their capacities from each other, yet there
is a capacity, which no man may claim, as there is a wisdom, to which
no man pretends. The sublime views of God in the system of nature are
comprehended, to a certain degree, and justly magnified and unfolded by
many men, who, yet, have not the presumption to suppose that they were
themselves capable, of planning such a system. In like manner, we may see
and adore the wisdom, with which Christ _spake_, and yet conclude, upon
good grounds, that as no man ever did, so no man ever could, speak with
such wisdom.
IV. A fourth circumstance (and the last I shall mention) which
distinguished Jesus, as a Speaker, was the penetrating influence of his
discourses, or the divine ENERGY, with which they were accompanied.
Other speakers have thought it enough to convince their hearers by
cogent arguments; to excite their passions by lively images; to touch
the general springs of humanity, or to practise on the peculiar foibles
and prejudices of the party addressed. But Jesus had the singular art to
convince without reasoning, and to persuade without rhetorick. Few and
simple words, from that mouth, attained their end with ease: they struck
the soul with more than all the effect of that eloquence, which hath
been compared to lightning: they needed no help from tropes and figures,
from the acquired knowledge of human nature, or from the information
of others, but went directly to the heart by their own proper and
irresistible virtue. In a word, Jesus saw what no art could divine, he
saw intuitively the naked conscience, the secret individual thoughts of
those, with whom he had any concern; and being able, withal, to possess
their minds with a consciousness of this intuition, his least word, his
look, nay his silence must needs _speak_ beyond the eloquence of other
men.
There are many instances of this sort, recorded in the Gospels. He
saw the malice of the Scribes and Pharisees[132], while it was yet
latent in the heart, and only forming itself into secret purposes and
mental propositions; and he surprized them by his answers, into shame
and _madness_[133]. He saw the seeds of ambition putting forth in the
minds of his disciples: and by a word or two, he prevented the growth of
them[134]. By only _looking_ upon Peter[135], he struck him into remorse
and tears. And by _answering nothing_, he _astonished_, at once, and
convinced the Roman Governor, who sat in judgment upon him[136].
This inspection of the heart, was that which confounded the officers,
whom the chief priests had sent to apprehend him, and drew from them, on
their return, the advantageous report of the text—_that never man spake
like this man_. For, by what he said in their hearing, he gave them to
understand that he knew their commission before they had opened it: and
so disarmed their rage, by only signifying his acquaintance with their
design.
The effect of what he said and did was, in many conjunctures, wholly
disproportioned to his words and actions: and is only to be accounted
for, from the clear insight he had into the mind, and from the secret
influence which he knew, by an apt sentence[137], or by an expressive
emblem[138], to inject into the conscience of his hearers. And what
resistance can, indeed, be made to such a _speaker_, who hath the hearts
of men in his hands, and _turneth them whithersoever he will_[139]?
In all views, then, whether we consider the _matter_, the _authority_,
the _wisdom_, or the _effect_ of Christ’s discourses, we must needs be
convinced that the text is amply verified, and that _never man spake like
this man_.
To conclude: I have not amused you, in this discourse, with vain
declamation. I am not solicitous to establish the credit of Jesus, as a
consummate orator. My views are other and far higher. I would convince
you, by a reference to plain facts, that he was more than man; that he
spake by the unerring spirit of God; that his word demands not your
praise, but your adoration.
If men would take their ideas of this divine teacher immediately from his
own doctrines, and not as they are misrepresented, or at best imperfectly
represented by the glosses of others, they would come, of themselves, to
this important conclusion: if they would make the Gospel their serious
study, and not their casual amusement, they would want no monitor to let
them into the merits, or the use of it. They would more than see, they
would feel the spirit, with which Jesus spake; and they would readily
offer to him, not their barren applause, but their sincere obedience.
Till this salutary effect be wrought in those who call themselves the
disciples of Jesus, it may not be improper to remind them of what he
himself said to ONE, who was affected, as we may now be, by a sense of
his divine power in speaking. He had been delivering great truths, with
that authority and wisdom, which ever accompanied his instructions, and
the effect was answerable. For _it came to pass_, as he _spake these
things, that a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said
to him_, in the customary style of approbation, _Blessed is the womb
that bare thee, and the paps that thou hast sucked. But_ HE _said, Yea,
rather blessed are they that_ HEAR THE WORD OF GOD, AND KEEP IT[140].
SERMON XXXVIII.
PREACHED NOVEMBER 20, 1774.
MATTH. xiii. 10.
_The Disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest Thou to them in
Parables?_
Two things are very observable in our Lord’s conduct towards the Jews.
He came to _instruct_ them in the principles of a new religion, and to
_convince_ them of its divine authority. Yet to such of them, as were
least enlightened by his doctrine, he generally addressed himself in
Parables: And before such, as were backward to admit his pretensions,
he was sparing of his Miracles. Now the contrary of this conduct, it is
said, might be expected: That he should have explained himself in the
clearest manner to the uninformed Jews; and should have multiplied his
miracles, for the conviction of the unbelieving.
I propose to consider both these circumstances in the history of Jesus;
and to shew that his conduct, in either case, was suitable to his
character and mission.
I, now, confine myself to the PARABLES; and shall take another occasion
to consider the MIRACLES.
The Disciples, having observed that their Master spoke to the Jews in
a more obscure and indirect manner, than he was wont to do in private
to themselves, _came and said unto him, Why speakest thou to them in
Parables?_
This method of conveying instruction in Parables, that is, in some
feigned story, where one thing is put for another, and in which the
circumstances of the story are to be applied to something different in
the intention of the speaker, is well known to have been of constant and
familiar use in the old world, and especially in the Eastern nations.
This figurative cast of language had its rise from necessity, the rude
conceptions of men requiring general truths to be presented to them, in
sensible images. But it soon came to be affected as an ornamental way of
speaking or writing, the liveliness of the image awakening curiosity,
and affording amusement to the mind. Lastly, it was sometimes employed
as a mysterious cover of important truths, to which a more than ordinary
attention was to be raised, and especially of such important truths as
could not be communicated openly and directly without offence. Under
this last idea, the Parable, properly so called, presents itself to
us. It was contrived on purpose to throw some degree of obscurity over
the information, it contained: And it is in reference to this use and
character of the Parable, that the Disciples ask why Jesus thought fit to
address the Jews in this way.
To this question, why he spake to the Jews in Parables, and not to the
Disciples, our Lord’s reply is in these words—_Because, to you it is
given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to them it is not
given_.
By this answer we learn, _First_, that the things delivered by him in
this obscure way were not the fundamental truths of the Gospel, but
_the mysteries of the kingdom of God_, that is, certain secrets relating
to the progress of the Gospel, and the event of it in the world; a
consideration, which will be enlarged upon in its place: And, _Secondly_,
that it was not _given_ to the Jews, at large, to be let into those
mysteries, but to the disciples only.
But why _not given to the Jews_? why was it thought less fit for
them, to be initiated in these mysteries, than for the Disciples? Our
Lord condescends to answer, or rather to anticipate this question,
likewise—_For whosoever hath, to him shall be given and he shall have
more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even
that he hath_.
The answer, we see, is formed on this general principle, “That
information in the councils of God is not to be claimed as a debt; but
accepted as a reward: that he, who hath acquired some knowledge and
improved what he hath, deserves a further communication of it; but that
he, who hath been at no pains to acquire any, or who puts his knowledge
to as little use, as if he had acquired none, is so far from having
a right to more, that he even deserves to have the pittance, he may
already possess, taken from him.” And what more indisputable rule of
reason, than this, That, in a matter of pure favour, we should deserve,
by our good dispositions at least, this distinction before we obtain
it. So that the answer comes out thus—“I speak to the JEWS in parables,
because they do not deserve, by the pains they have hitherto taken to
learn of me, and by the dispositions they have shewn to improve what
I have taught them, to have further information plainly and openly
conveyed to them: But to YOU, who have already profited by my doctrine,
and are disposed still further to profit by it, to you I address myself
in a plainer manner, because ye deserve to be more fully and abundantly
instructed by me.” And to this answer, thus understood, what objection,
or even what cavil, can be opposed?
But, further, when Jesus said to his Disciples, that _to them it was
given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the Jews_,
at large, _it was not given_, this determination must be understood as
founded, not merely on the fitness of the thing, as here explained, but
on the positive will and declared purpose of God. This appears from
what follows. For _therefore_, proceeds our Lord, _speak I to them in
Parables, because they seeing see not, and hearing they hear not,
neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of
Isaias, which saith, by hearing Ye shall hear and shall not understand,
and seeing Ye shall see and shall not perceive. For this people’s heart
is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they
have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should be
converted, and I should heal them._
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.