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_.