respects, a juster claim, than the Jewish doctors, to that proud,
distinctive appellation. Though their reasoning, on many subjects (on
which, however, they valued themselves most) was little better than that
of the Cabbalists; yet, in moral matters, which are of the highest
concern to mankind, they had been able to trace out some plausible and
ingenious theories, and had even penetrated so far as to apprehend some
general and fundamental principles of natural religion. Yet all this
was matter of vanity among them, rather than of public use. Their most
interesting speculations were either confined to their schools, or
secreted from the common eye, in their mysteries. Their moral systems
were calculated to amuse, to polish, and, we will say, to instruct the
higher ranks of men; but they were composed in such a way, and proceeded
on such principles, that the vulgar could be little benefited by them.
And, for what they knew of religious truth, they studiously kept it
from the _poor_, and left them to the tyranny of their senseless, their
impure, their abominable superstitions. Even Socrates himself, though he
laboured very commendably to reform the lives of his fellow-citizens,
yet laboured to little effect, as he would not, or durst not, disgrace
their idolatries, the source of all their corruption and misery. The
rest of these wise men were well contented, at most, with being _wise to
themselves_; they stood aloof from the prophane vulgar; and contemplated,
with much complacency, or with much disdain, the popular errors.
Such, and so wretched were the _poor_, when our blessed Lord came to
announce the good tidings of salvation to them! Incapable of themselves
to find out or to understand their duty, and misled, neglected, or
contemned by those who should have been their instructors; lost in error
and in vice, with no prospect of recovering themselves out of either;
without guides, and without friends; in a word, _without hope, and
without God in the world_[170]; What could equal their wants and their
distresses? And how loudly did they cry to Heaven for some friendly hand
to be stretched out, some celestial light to be dispensed, to them?
But, perhaps, these unhappy men deserved not the care of Heaven. And,
without doubt, if we put their claim on that footing, it will be
difficult to make out their title to such distinction. Yet they had
something, too, to plead for themselves, something to engage the regards
of their merciful Creator, if it be true, as I observed,
II. In the next place, that their hearts, depraved as they were, were yet
not so utterly perverse, as those of the _rich and great and wise_, who
poured such contempt upon them.
And, for our satisfaction in this point, we need but look into the
Gospel-history; where we find, from many facts and testimonies, that the
poorer sort among the Jews were they who gave the best proofs of their
disposition to embrace the doctrine, and acknowledge the pretensions, of
Jesus.
When he _preached_ to the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees, that is, the
_rich and wise_, almost universally and without exception, cavilled at
his doctrine, perverted his words, and sought occasion only _how they
might entangle him in his talk_[171]. But the people, giving way to the
ingenuous sense of their own minds, _heared him gladly_[172]: They were
even _very attentive to hear him_[173]. Nor let it be thought, that the
love of novelty, or some worse motive, which oft seduces the populace
in such cases, was the cause of this attention. They give another, and
better reason of it—_Never man_, say they, _spake like this man_[174]:
Again, _they were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one
having authority, and not as the Scribes_[175]; That is, they had the
sense to perceive there was a weight and force and importance in his
doctrines, which they had never found in any other, and, least of all, in
the light, frothy, and frivolous doctrines of their Scribes; and they had
the honesty to acknowledge and proclaim their own feelings.
Again; When Jesus wrought his miracles before the Jews, while their
superiors were unconvinced, or blasphemed against conviction,
the multitudes cried out in admiration, _Is not this the Son of
David[176]?_—_It was never_, they say, _so seen in Israel_[177]—With a
becoming candour and piety, _they marvelled, and glorified God, who had
given such power unto men_[178].
Thus much for the Jews. And the same difference, between the _rich and
poor_, afterwards appeared, when the Apostles turned themselves to the
Gentiles. So that St. James reasons upon it, as a certain fact. _Do not
rich men oppress you, and draw you before the Judgment seats? Do they not
blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called[179]?_ And St. Paul to
the same purpose, when appeals to the Gentile Christians themselves—_Ye
see your calling, my brethren, how that not many wise men after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called_[180].
And, if we extend our inquiries beyond the Apostolic age, we still find,
that, while councils and synagogues, priests and philosophers, governors
and kings, were confederated against the rising church, the _poor_,
the _weak_, the _ignorant_, the _ignoble_, very readily, and in great
numbers, pressed into it.
Considering then this fairness of mind, which distinguished the _poor_,
together with their multiplied necessities, we shall cease to think it
strange that our blessed Lord should first and principally _preach the
Gospel to them_; and that this circumstance should be predicted of him,
and urged by himself, as characteristic of his person and office. For
what could distinguish the divine Messiah more, than this condescension
to those who most needed, and best deserved, his instruction? Who can
wonder that, _when he saw the multitudes_, thus circumstanced, _he was
moved with compassion on them, because they fainted_[181], under the
merciless vexations of their superiors, _and were scattered abroad_[182],
and left exposed to every injury, _as sheep having no shepherd_[183]?
Could any splendor of miracles more illustrate his character, than
that affectionate address to the poor people, groaning under all their
burthens, of which the pride of wealth and wisdom was not the least,
_Come unto me, ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lonely in
heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls_[184]?
Our Lord’s whole ministry seems uniformly directed to this end of beating
down the insolence of all worldly distinctions, which had too much
vilified and degraded human nature. For this purpose, he condescended,
himself, to be born in the lowest rank of life, to be brought up in what
the world calls a mean and mechanic profession, to converse chiefly with
the poor and indigent, to take for his companions and disciples the most
sordid of the people, and to propagate his religion by the weakest and
most unpromising instruments: _Chusing_, as St. Paul divinely expresses
it, _the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise; the weak
things of the world, to confound the things that are mighty; And the base
things of the world, and things which are despised, yea, and things which
are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory
in his presence_[185].
In a word, he seems studiously to have bent his whole endeavours, to
vindicate the honour of depressed humanity; to support its weakness, to
countenance its wants, to ennoble its misery, and to dignify its disgrace.
Nor let any one presume to insinuate, that this conduct of our blessed
Saviour was directed to other ends; As if he sought, by this application
to the people, to engage _them_ in the support of his new kingdom,
and then, by their noise and numbers, to force the rest into it. The
suspicion is utterly without grounds. Jesus made no factious use of the
popularity he acquired by his condescension; he discountenanced and
repressed every effort of that nature; and, though his care was chiefly
employed about the _poor_, it was not confined to them: He _preached_
indiscriminately to all, he did his miracles before all, in public, in
open day-light, in the presence of the greatest persons, and in places
of the greatest resort; in short, his doctrines and his credentials
were equally offered to the examination of men of all ranks and all
denominations, of the doctors and rulers of the Jewish people, as well as
of the people themselves. This, an impostor most assuredly would not have
done.
We have now, then, a reasonable account given us, why it pleased God that
the Saviour of the world should be known by this mark, among others, of
_his preaching the Gospel to the poor_. The GOODNESS of his character was
signally illustrated, by this gracious conduct. I have only to observe,
further, that his WISDOM was equally displayed by it: And both together
must needs furnish a presumptive argument of his divine mission.
Had the ablest speculative philosopher been consulted about the proper
method of reforming the world, though with the attending evidence and
authority of miracles, I suppose his plan for effecting this design would
have been wholly different from that, which was taken. He would have
counselled an application, not to the _poor_ chiefly, if to them at all,
but to the _rich_, the _great_, and the _wise_. The minister of this
important charge would have been directed to shew himself in the most
conspicuous scene, to make the capital of the world, imperial Rome, the
head-quarters of his mission, to perform his miracles before the Roman
senate, and to proselyte, first of all, the wise and learned of that
empire; As conceiving this to be the readiest way to the establishment of
his new Religion, and trusting to the power of these great instruments,
as to some irresistible vortex, to draw the people with them, into the
general profession of it.
This, or something like this, we may imagine, would have been the
language of human wisdom. But what would have been the event of these
profound and politic counsels? Most probably, the design would not have
taken effect. The interests, the prejudices, the pride, and the very
philosophy of the world would have revolted against it. The plainest
miracles would have been shuffled over, as the sleights of magick: and
the divinest truths, been derided as unlearned and ignorant conceits.
But what if the event had been otherwise? What, if the new religion
had prospered and acquired an establishment by these mighty means?
Posterity would then have turned the argument in another manner. They
would have accounted, and with some reason, for this revolution in the
sentiments of mankind, not from the will of Heaven, but the power and
policy of men. They would have sought the origin of this triumphant
religion in the operation of human causes, and not in the controlling
influence of divine. The new system might be preferred to many others
that have prevailed in the world, but would be thought to have made its
way by the same means. It would still be considered, as a mere human
engine, calculated to serve the ends of society, and not to interest the
conscience, as proceeding from the sole authority of God. And what could
have been opposed to these suggestions? The cause is plainly adequate to
the effect: And, thus, the glory of God would have been obscured; and the
dispensation itself, exposed to contempt.
See then _the riches both of the goodness and wisdom of God_: Of his
GOODNESS, in caring for the poor; and of his WISDOM, in providing by his
use of so unlikely means, _that our faith should not stand in the wisdom
of man, but in the power of God_.
To conclude; _the ways of God are_, very frequently, _not our ways_[186];
Yet, when the difference is most striking, a diligent inquiry will
sometimes convince us (as in the case before us) that they may be
justified even to our apprehensions: The use of which conviction should
be, to satisfy us, in other cases, that his ways are always adorable,
even when to US, in this state of weakness and blindness, they are _past
finding out_.
SERMON XLII.
PREACHED JANUARY 24, 1773.
JOHN xiv. 2.
_In my Father’s house are many mansions_: IF IT WERE NOT SO, I WOULD HAVE
TOLD YOU.
These words are not a little remarkable; and, if carefully considered,
will be found to make very much for the honour of the Christian religion,
and its divine author.
Our blessed Lord was now upon the point of leaving the world. He foresaw,
distinctly, his own approaching death, and the discouragements of all
sorts, which, of course, would oppress his disciples, when he should be
taken from them. He therefore applies himself, in this farewell address,
to animate their courage by the assurance of future glory. “_Let not
your heart be troubled_, says he, at the worst that may befall you: _Ye
believe in_ the general providence of _God_: _believe also in me_, in the
care which I shall especially take to see an ample recompence made you
for all your sufferings on my account. _For in my Father’s house are many
mansions_; wherein each of you, according to his deserts, shall for ever
enjoy an inviolable repose and felicity. And on this promise ye may rely
with the most entire confidence: for know this, That, _if it were not
so_, no consideration should have induced me to fill your minds with vain
hopes; on the other hand, _I would have told you_ the plain truth, how
unwelcome soever it might be to you.”
We have here, then, from the mouth of Christ himself, an express
disavowal of RELIGIOUS FRAUD OR IMPOSTURE; and that, in a point where
wise men have sometimes thought themselves at liberty, nay under an
obligation, to _lye_ for the public service, and in a conjuncture, too,
when, if ever, it might seem allowable for a good man to deceive his
friends on a mere principle of compassion.
For what so beneficial, it may be said, to mankind, at large, as
the persuasion of a future state, in which their happiness shall be
proportioned to their virtue? And who, that has any bowels, would carry
his attachment to strict truth so far, as not to suffer an unhappy friend
to _die_, at least, in this persuasion, when the hopes of life, or the
comforts of it, had entirely forsaken him?
These questions are plausible: but our Lord, who was _the Truth_, as well
as _the Life_, governed himself by other maxims. He knew that the real
interests of mankind are only, or are best promoted by veracity; that
every degree of fraud, though it may have some immediate, or temporary
good effects, is, in the order of things, productive of much mischief; is
injurious to our moral and reasonable nature, which was made for truth,
and finds its proper satisfaction in it; is liable to detection, to
suspicion, at least; and if it be but the latter (entertained on probable
grounds, and become, as it soon will be, universal), not only the chief
benefits of the imposture are, thenceforth, lost, but truth itself,
in other cases, is taken for imposture: of which there is not a more
deplorable instance, than in the subject we are now considering: for,
it being well known that men have been forward to deceive each other
in matters of religion, and particularly in what concerns the hope or
fear of a future state, hence, an incurable suspicion has sunk deep into
the minds of too many, concerning Christianity itself; as if, in this
momentous doctrine of life and immortality, it amused us only, as many
other schemes of religion have done, with a plausible and politic fiction.
But our blessed Lord, as I said, had other views of this matter, and
governed himself by other principles. He knew, who it was that had been
_a liar_, and therefore _a man-slayer from the beginning_[187]; and
left it to him, the adversary of God and man, to signalize himself by
_murderous_ deceit and imposture. For himself, he tells his disciples,
whom of all men, it concerned him most to possess with this salutary
belief of a future state; He tells them, I say, that, instead of deluding
them with a groundless hope, he would certainly, and even at this season,
which made that hope so infinitely precious, declare to them the simple
truth, and on no account permit them to continue under a false (if it had
been false), though flattering persuasion.
Shall we believe this great teacher, on his own word? Or, will you
suspect, that even this uncommon declaration, uncommon in the founder of
a new religion, was only a refinement of art and policy; and that Jesus
hoped, by this shew of frankness, to propagate his favourite imposture
the more successfully in the world?
I know, and have just now observed, to what lengths our ingenious
suspicions on this subject are apt to run. But consider the
circumstances; and then judge for yourselves, whether the suspicion, in
this case, be well founded.
_In my Father’s house_, says he, _are many mansions: if it were not so, I
would have told you_. And can we doubt his sincerity in this declaration,
when he was now to make an experiment of its truth; and the deception, if
it were one, was first to operate on himself, before it affected others?
A speculative reasoner, or a politic legislator, when planning his system
at his ease, and in no danger of being called upon to make trial of
his own principles, might discourse with much complacency, though with
little inward belief, of a happy futurity. But for one, who was just
stepping into that world, of which he announced such wonders, who was
going, by one confident venture, to put his doctrine to the proof, and
to expire in torments from a view to his own promises; for one, I say,
thus circumstanced, knowingly to delude himself and others, is not in
human nature, unless perverted by such a degree of weakness or vanity,
as no man will think chargeable on the character of Jesus. Socrates, the
ablest and the honestest of the ancient sages, had, on moral principles,
reasoned himself into a favourable opinion of the soul’s immortality.
He had often expressed this opinion to his friends, in terms of some
force; and there were times in which he seemed very little, if at all,
to question the truth of it. Yet, when he came to die, and had taken the
fatal cup into his hand, his resolution gives way, he hesitates, and
leaves his followers, after first of all confessing himself to be left,
in the utmost uncertainty on this momentous topic: a conduct surely very
natural, and becoming a wise man, who had not, and who knew he had not,
the most convincing evidence of its reality!
But there are further reasons to think that Jesus was sincere in making
this declaration to his disciples, suggested to us by _the terms of his
religion_, and by _his own personal character_.
Those _terms_ were, that whoever believed in the name of Christ, that
is, became a convert to his religion, was thenceforth to encounter all
sorts of difficulties, and dangers, and distresses, nay, death itself,
and that, in every dreadful shape, which the malice of the world could
invent, rather than to retract or forego his open profession of it. This,
the disciples had been often told by their Master: who, whether as a
prophet, or a wise man (it matters not which, to our present purpose) had
distinctly foreseen, and had set before them in all its force, what they
were to expect and to suffer for his sake, and the sake of the Gospel.
Other teachers of religion and philosophy required no such terms of their
followers, or had reason to apprehend no such consequences from the
propagation of their opinions. They might therefore keep their doubts to
themselves, if they had any, of a future state: In Jesus, such reserve,
or dissimulation, would have been the most unfeeling cruelty.
And against whom is this suspicion indulged? Why against HIM (and that
was the other consideration I mentioned) whose personal character was
that of goodness and philanthropy itself. This character shines out
in every page of the Gospel. We see it in all he said and did to his
disciples, whom he calls his _friends_, and treats as such on all
occasions: witness his condescension to their infirmities, his concern
for their safety (while it might consist with their duty), his compassion
for their sufferings, his friendliness of temper, we may even say, his
affection for their persons and virtues. In short, the sympathetic
tenderness of his nature was evidenced in all ways, in which it could
possibly shew itself, even by that of tears.
Now, put these two things together, his _deep concern for the interests
of his disciples_, on the one hand, and _the severe injunctions he gave
them_, on the other, and see if there be any possibility of mistrusting
our Lord’s good faith in that memorable declaration—_In my Father’s house
there are many mansions_: IF IT WERE NOT SO, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU.
His language on the subject, so interesting to them, had, indeed,
been always the same. _Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,
for my sake. Rejoyce, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward
in heaven[188]._ This he said in the beginning of his ministry: This he
now repeats in the close of it; but with that remarkable assurance (now
for the first time given, and, from the _time_ of giving it, not more
important, than it is credible) _if it were not so_, if your _reward in
heaven_ were not such, and so great, as I have ever affirmed it to be, in
recompence of all your sufferings, past and to come, for my sake, I would
not have left you under an error in what so infinitely concerns You—_I
would_ expressly _have told you of it_.
THE USE we have to make of these reflections is, to see what our _Lord’s
character_ truly was; and what our reasonable _hopes and expectations_
from him are.
I. But for this declaration, it might be thought, that Jesus, pushed
on by an eager ambition of being the founder of a sect, had, for his
_own_ ends, preached up this alluring doctrine of a future state; or,
that, heated by a moral enthusiasm, he had overlooked the mischiefs of
his scheme, in contemplation of the _public_ ends, it might serve, as
applied to the important interests of virtue and religion. Surmises
of this sort might have sprung up in the minds of men, not prejudiced
against the author of our faith; and would certainly have been cherished
and malignantly insisted upon by his enemies. But it now appears, that
he disclaimed all such views and purposes: that he was cool enough
to see the iniquity of all religious deception; and just enough to
acknowledge the cruelty of it, in the present instance. If he had not
certainly known the truth of his doctrine, he would have recalled and
disowned it. He felt, in his own case, what it was to encounter death
for conscience-sake: and he knew what deaths others were to encounter
on the like grounds of persuasion. But _for the joy that was set before
him_, how could the shame and agony of that cross be endured? And, if
there be no recompence of reward, should he expose to such, or to equal
sufferings, his honest, unsuspecting, affectionate followers? The instant
moment[189], the imposed duty[190], the foreseen event[191], the upright
mind[192], the feeling heart[193], all conspire to satisfy us, that Jesus
was not, could not, be the fraudulent, that is, the insensible, the
unrelenting, the merciless inventor or publisher of a politic fable, but
a teacher of truth and righteousness sent from God.
Thus much for our Lord’s _general character_; which we shall do well to
keep in mind, when we meditate on any part of his instructions to us;
but more especially, when, for our singular comfort, we attend to his
great doctrine of a BLESSED IMMORTALITY. Our divine Master has in the
clearest and fullest terms, announced this doctrine to us; and, what is
more, he has anxiously removed the only possible doubt, which we could
have of its truth, by disclaiming the politic use, which too many others
had presumed to make of it.
II. It follows, that we may rely, with confidence, on this invaluable
promise of a future life; the only source of peace and comfort to the
mind, without which the disordered scene of this life is inexplicable to
the wisest men, and scarce supportable by the happiest; we may, I say,
rely with safety on this _glorious hope_[194] of immortality, unless
we will suppose that Jesus meant to deceive us even then, when he most
deliberately and solemnly pledged himself to us for his veracity: a
supposition, which is, in truth, as foolish as it is indecent.
Assured therefore, as we are, that our Saviour both taught this doctrine,
and taught it without the least mixture of guile or dissimulation, let us
hold fast our expectation of it to the end; and in all the troubles of
this life, whether endured for conscience-sake or not, provided only they
be such as consist _with_ a good conscience, let us reckon with certainty
on our title to one of those eternal _mansions_, of which there are so
_many in the house of our heavenly Father_; and that, for the sake and
through the merits of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; the author of our salvation,
as well as the proclaimer of it: our merciful Redeemer, at once, and
infallible Instructor; to whom be all honour, praise, and thanksgiving,
now and for ever. Amen.
SERMON XLIII.
PREACHED MAY 5, 1776.
JOHN xvi. 12, 13.
_I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will guide you
into_ ALL TRUTH: _for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he
shall hear, that shall he speak: and_ HE WILL SHEW YOU THINGS TO COME.