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.
There is no doubt but the word, _poor_, in the prophecies alledged, and
in Christ’s application of them, is very capable of being understood
in a metaphorical or spiritual sense, and was even intended to be so
understood; I mean, in that sense, which our Lord gives to the word,
_Poor_, when he says—_Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven_[164]. But this metaphorical sense does not exclude,
it rather supposes, the literal. For, who are _the poor in spirit_,
for the most part, but _the poor in fortune_? they, whom neither the
pride of knowledge and education, nor the pride of wealth and place,
has corrupted with vain ideas of their own sufficiency? But, there is
a peculiar reason for the literal interpretation of the Text. For the
words, _blind_, _lame_, and _deaf_, have, likewise, their metaphorical
sense in the prophet, as well as the word, _poor_. Yet our Lord alledges
the completion of the prophecy, in the literal meaning of those words;
for he refers the messengers of John to what _they saw and heared_; to
the miracles, he was then working, or had worked, on _the blind, lame,
and deaf_, that is, in restoring their bodily senses and members[165].
So that, when the poor are spoken of by Jesus, at the same time, we must
needs understand him as speaking of the _poor_, properly so called, that
is, of the lower ranks of people, whom he was even then instructing, as
well as healing.
We see, then, That Christ _preached the Gospel to the poor_, in the
literal, as well as spiritual sense of that word: And, in so doing,
he both fulfilled the whole extent of the prophecy; and, as we shall
now find, gave an eminent proof of the GOODNESS and WISDOM of his own
character.
For, consider the state of the _poor_, how much they wanted, and how much
better, than the rich, they deserved, instruction, when our Lord, in
mercy, came _to preach the Gospel to them_.
I. The condition of the _poor_, that is, of the people at large, was
truly deplorable, at that time. They were every where treated by their
superiors with the utmost contempt, and left to struggle with an almost
invincible ignorance and corruption.
The Jews, indeed, had the benefit of a divine law: but their Scribes
and Doctors _had made it of none effect, by their traditions_[166].
They had corrupted the word of God, by their fanciful cabbalistical
glosses; and had debased their holy ritual, into a frivolous and sordid
superstition. They had _the key of knowledge_ in their hands; but they
neither employed it to the purpose of opening the true meaning of the
Scriptures, themselves, nor would suffer the people to make this use of
it. In the mean time, their pride increased with their other vices: they
thought themselves _wise and prudent[167], and righteous_[168]; and, in
sovereign admiration of their own worth and knowledge, _they despised
others_. Their insolence to the _poor_ was so transcendant, that they
reproached them for that ignorance, which themselves had occasioned;
and even checked their endeavours to understand the true meaning of
their law, in terms of the bitterest scorn and execration. _Have any
of the Rulers or Pharisees_, said they, _believed in Jesus? But this
people[169], that knoweth not the law, are accursed._
Such was the state of the _poor_, among the Jews: and that of the Gentile
poor was no better. As the former were only insulted, and not instructed,
by their RABBIS; So the _latter_ were just as ill treated by their
PHILOSOPHERS.