have been, and are, many of those over-modest men, who know not how to
withstand the raillery of prophane scoffers; who think the credit of
their parts concerned in rejecting their creed, and applaud themselves
for sitting loose to the principles, which they call the prejudices,
of their Christian education; who affect to have a religion of their
own making, if they have any at all, or, rather, disclaim all regard
to religion, on the authority of this or that renowned patriarch of
infidelity; to say all, in a word, who have the infirmity, and yet make
it a matter of vanity, to be ASHAMED OF JESUS.
Now, of such unbelievers it must be said, that they clearly come within
the description of the text; they are _ashamed_ of the Son of man, and
yet, perhaps, _glory in their shame_: to what end, let them reflect,
when they read on, and find, that of such _shall the Son of man_, in
his turn, _be ashamed, when he shall came in his own glory, and in his
Father’s, and of the holy Angels_.
II. [1.] Of men _professing_ Christianity, they are most exposed to the
censure of the text, who, under a full conviction that Jesus is the
Christ, yet, in WORDS, formally disown and reject him. Such was the
Apostle Peter, who _thrice denied_ his Lord, though he had not the least
doubt of his divine pretensions. And why did he deny him? Because, it
lessened him in the eyes of a stranger or two, to have it believed by
them, that he was connected with a supposed criminal; because he had not
the confidence to bear up against the reproach of a _maid-servant_, who
_looked earnestly upon him, and said, This man was, also, with him_. Such
was the power, which a false shame had upon this great, and otherwise
fervent, disciple of Christ! A memorable instance of human frailty, which
should admonish believers to be on their guard against all approaches
towards a crime, the less pardonable, because committed against the clear
sense of the mind, and almost without temptation.
St. Peter, it is true, might alledge the passion of _fear_, as well as
_shame_: he probably thought his life in some danger, and had an eye
to his personal safety, as well as credit, when he denied his Master.
Yet when he reflected on his unworthy conduct, though under these
circumstances of alleviation, he _wept bitterly_, as he had reason
to do. What then should they feel, who have not this cloke for their
shame? who deny their Lord without any inducement to do so, but the weak
apprehension of disgusting some persons, whose sentiments, after all,
they do not really adopt, themselves. Yet is this no uncommon case. Men
are ashamed to confess with their mouths, what they believe in their
hearts; and give themselves airs of a frank libertinism, when they
tremble at their own impiety: And all this to be well with a frivolous
circle, which they frequent, or to merit the good word of certain
fashionable blasphemers.
[2]. Another sort of men seem to come within the description of the text,
who, though neither prompted by a sense of danger to their persons, nor
of disgrace to their reputation, are yet induced by a regard to their
_interest_, when it presses upon them with a certain force, to dissemble
their conviction, or rather openly to avow their shame of Jesus. Such
are they, of whom our Lord himself speaks, _who for a while believe, and
in time of temptation fall away_[275]: And such, in particular, was the
young man in the Gospel, who had no vice to keep him from believing, nay
who would gladly, perhaps have sacrificed any thing, but his fortune,
to the Christian faith. It seems, as if he had been upon the point of
entering, without reserve, into the service of his new master, when,
being told, that he must part with _all he had_, and then _follow him,
he grew sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great
possessions_[276]. Poverty was a _cross_, which this amiable young man
was not prepared to _take up_. His faith, which, before, gave a promise
of life and vigour, died away at the proposal. He now found, doubtless
with some surprize to himself, that he had the seeds of infidelity
lurking in him. He could not resolve to give this last proof of his
sincerity: he, therefore, withdrew himself from Christ; in other words,
he was _ashamed_ of him. Let us pity the weakness of this unhappy
young man; and only ask ourselves, if, in his circumstances, or in any
approaching to them, we should not have hesitated, as he did, about
_believing in the name_ of the Lord Jesus. If we should, let us implore
the divine grace to strengthen our faith, and frankly confess, that a
secret principle of _shame_, though skulking behind some other and more
venial infirmity, has taken hold of us.
[3]. Still we may not have gone these lengths of infidelity. We assure
ourselves, perhaps, that no consideration would induce us, simply and
wholly, to renounce the faith, and that, if the hard alternative was
proposed to us, we should rather give up wealth, fame, and life itself,
than formally deny our Lord, and disclaim all hopes of interest in him.
But let us explore our hearts a little, those _hearts_, which, as we are
told and have reason to know, are _deceitful above all things_[277]. Have
we never in lesser instances detected ourselves approaching somewhat
towards this ignominious crime of apostacy?
Have we not contented ourselves with being the disciples of Christ
in private, and with _going to him_, as the Ruler of the Jews did,
_by night_, in secrecy, and, as it were, by stealth, not to draw the
observation of men upon us? Have we been willing and ready to serve
him in the congregation, to attend his ordinances, and to revere his
sacraments? Have we dared to let the world see that we are not ashamed
of the cross of Christ[278]? and that we glory in _remembering him_, as
we are admonished to do, at his holy table[279]? Have we no reluctance
to let our friends, nay our servants, know[280] that we live in a daily
sense of our duty to him, and that we hope for all the blessings of
this life and the next, only through his merits and intercession? Have
we never heared his pretensions slighted, and his holy name blasphemed,
without expressing a becoming zeal for the honour of our Redeemer?
Have we testified out displeasure at freedoms of this sort by an open
reprehension of them on all fit occasions; at least by a look and manner,
which shewed how offensive they were to us? On the other hand, have we
never, in such circumstances, by an assumed air of complacency, seemed
to authorize what we secretly disapproved, and to yield our assent to
propositions which we inwardly detested? In a word, have we none of us,
at any time, given occasion to unbelievers to say or think of us, that
we were _almost_ inclined to be of their party; or at least that we had
not the zeal, and firmness and resolution, which men ought to have, who
profess themselves believers in Jesus?
To these, and other questions of the like sort, it concerns us to think
what answers we could honestly make. But of this be we assured: If we
have not constantly and uniformly signified, declared, proclaimed our
attachment to Christ; if we have not taken care to avoid all irreverence
toward our Lord and Master; nay, if we have not been enough upon our
guard to let no man suspect us of _indifference_ towards him—we certainly
have not done our duty; we have virtually denied _the Son of Man_; we
have, in effect, been _ashamed_ of him.
And THUS MUCH may suffice for a commentary on that part of the text,
which more immediately respects the PERSON of Jesus Christ—_Whosoever
shall be ashamed of_ ME—but our Lord goes farther, and says—_Whosoever
shall be ashamed of me, and of_ MY WORDS—_of him shall the Son of Man be
ashamed_, in the day of judgment.
Here, then, is a new subject of discourse. I call it a new one; because,
though the two topics run into one, and he that is ashamed of Christ’s
_words_, may not improperly be said to be ashamed of _Christ himself_,
yet, for the sake of method, it may be convenient to keep these two
points distinct, and to give to each a separate consideration.
It remains, then, to set before you the principal of those ways, in
which we may incur the guilt, especially, of being ashamed of our Lord’s
_words_, that is, his DOCTRINES, and LAWS: a copious and important
subject! on which I shall reserve what I have to say to another
occasion. In the mean time, let us lay to heart what we have now heard
concerning the honour due to the PERSON of our great Redeemer. _Be we
not, therefore, ashamed of our Lord_[281]—but _let us_ resolutely _abide
in him, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be
ashamed before him at his coming_[282].
SERMON LI.
PREACHED MAY 21, 1775.
LUKE ix. 26.
_Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of_ MY WORDS, _of him shall the
Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his
Father’s, and of the holy Angels_.
The text distinguishes between _being ashamed of_ CHRIST, and being
_ashamed of his_ WORDS. And, though the two charges, in effect, run into
one, yet I have found it convenient, in point of method, to observe that
distinction. Considering the subject, in this double view, we shall see
more clearly, _what_ the crime is, which we are here cautioned to avoid,
and _when_ we are guilty of it.
I have already gone through the first division of the text, and shall now
enter on the second. If we have not formally disowned, or, in effect,
at least, been _ashamed_ of CHRIST, that is, of his name, dignity,
and person, and of the relation, which we bear to him, as our SAVIOUR
and REDEEMER, yet have we not felt in ourselves, and evidenced to
others, something of that disposition in regard to his WORDS, that is,
considering him in the light of our LORD and MASTER?
Now, to do justice to this part of our subject, we must consider the
_words_ of Christ, first, in THEMSELVES, or as composing that form and
manner of address, in which he thought fit to deliver himself to us:
and, secondly, in the SUBJECT MATTER of them, that is, as comprehending
both his _doctrines_ and _precepts_, _articles of faith_, and _rules of
life_, all that, as our heavenly _Instructor_, he requires us to believe,
and, as our _lawgiver_, to put in practice. In both respects, I doubt,
we shall, many of us, find that we have too much, and too often, been
ashamed of Christ’s _words_.
I. Under the first consideration of the words themselves, that is, of
his _manner_ in addressing himself to us, let it be observed, that,
though it be true, in several respects, that _never man spake as this
man_, yet this commendation must not be extended to the _language_ of
his discourses, in which no peculiar art or elegance is affected. He
condescended to speak, as any other Jew might have done, and as his
Apostle afterwards did, plainly and clearly enough to convey his meaning,
but not with _the enticing words of man’s wisdom_, that is, of men
cultivated and polished in the school of Greek or Roman learning. Hence,
both in ancient and modern times, such as were, or pretended to be, so
accomplished, have not unfrequently objected to the style of the Gospel,
as rude and barbarous, and not composed with that beauty, which they
have been taught to admire in the masters of fine writing. Now, though
this pedantry might, perhaps, be excused in an old Pagan sophist, and
is naturally enough assumed by a modern classical unbeliever, one is
shocked to find it in professed Christians. And yet, I doubt, there are
not a few of those, who are _half ashamed_ of the Gospel, because not
written in the best Greek, or according to the rules of the most approved
rhetorick: I doubt, there are even those who might tell us, if they would
(as a polite Italian philologist has done) that they read their bible but
seldom, lest a familiarity with it should hurt their style; or perhaps
abstain from reading it, altogether, because not fashioned according to
their ideas of elegant composition.
It would be paying too much respect to this frivolous delicacy, to enter
into a formal confutation of it. What I shall say to it is, briefly,
this; first, that the style of scripture, though not classical, is by no
means destitute of life and beauty: secondly, that, although it were,
where the matter of it concerns us so much, it is childish to lay any
great stress on the manner: that, _further_, the very objection turns
to the honour of the Gospel, which was purposely so composed that the
effect of it, in the conversion of the world, might be seen to flow from
supernatural causes, and _that our faith should not stand in the wisdom
of men, but in the power of God_.
To all which I might add, what perhaps is a secret to our polite
objectors, that the rules of writing and speaking are more arbitrary than
they are taken to be: that they refer to our customs and manners, and
derive their merit from that reference, only; that, in different times
and places and under different circumstances, the same manner may be good
and bad; and that there is no universal archetype of perfect speech,
existing in nature[283].
But these minute inquiries are not for this time and place. On whatever
principles the style of scripture may be vindicated, or if it cannot be
vindicated at all to a fastidious reader, still I affirm, that the taking
offence at it is a species of that false shame, which the text condemns,
and which deserves condemnation. When the _word of God_ is held up to us
in the great day, and the inquiry is, what attention we have paid to it,
think how poor a subterfuge it will be from the _shame_, that will then
overtake us, to reply, in the face of men and angels, that it was not the
_word_ of Cicero or Plato.
Having dismissed this trifling cavil, let us now see,
II. In the next place, in what respects it may be charged upon us that
we have been ashamed of Christ’s _words_; that is, of their SUBJECT
MATTER; considered in the double view of the _doctrines_, and _precepts_,
contained in them.
1. As to the DOCTRINES of Christ, that is, the peculiar articles of
Christian faith, one would think that to reject, or question, or explain
away these, was inconsistent with the very profession of Christianity.
Yet this conduct in some shape or other, presents itself to us every day,
in those who are, or who desire to be thought, Christians; and one cannot
but wonder at the pains they take to draw upon themselves this charge of
inconsistency.
Some, bolder than the rest, would expunge whole chapters, nay books,
from the sacred canon, when the narrative rises above their faith, or
the doctrine will not sink to a level with their wisdom; others content
themselves with nibbling at single sentences, or, perhaps, words; and, if
no obscure manuscript be at hand to favour the system they adopt, take
refuge in a forced, unnatural punctuation. How many ancient and modern
heresies have we seen supported by that presumptuous, or this minute
strain of criticism!
Some, again, when the text is not called in question, turn their
ingenuity another way, and strike out new modes of interpretation. They
mangle and disfigure plain facts, or resolve them into allegories:
of this class were those primitive heresiarchs, who maintained that
_Christ was not come in the flesh_[284], and that _the Resurrection was
past already_[285]; and of the same family, too, are those presumptuous
moderns, of whatever name, who stumble at the cross of Christ, and sink
the doctrine of Redemption in a metaphor.
A third sort excell in puzzling a clear text, in putting a violent
construction on artless words, in explaining mysteries by metaphysics,
or, to get rid of them at once, in making the plain fishermen of Galilee
speak the language of Platonism, or of the Jewish cabbala.
In a word, it would be endless to specify all those, who by studied
devices, of various kinds, mutilate, prevert, misinterpret, confound the
word of God, obtruding their own sense upon it, and finding any thing
there rather than the plain obvious mind of the Revealer.
And why is all this industry employed, these daring liberties taken?
Why to make _Christianity not mysterious_, to shew how reasonable its
doctrines are, and to remove all objections against them. The pretence is
fair. But shall we then admit nothing in scripture, in that scripture
which we call divine, but what we perfectly understand, and can make
appear, in all its parts, to harmonize with our systems? Alas, what is
this, but to prescribe to the Spirit of God; to substitute our wisdom
in the place of his; in a word, to be ashamed of Christ’s words, and to
idolize our own reason.
To give one remarkable instance, out of many, of this false shame. If
there be any thing clearly revealed in holy scripture, it is, that there
is a world of spirits, good and bad: and of the last, that there is ONE,
placed at the head of them, who sets himself in opposition (as indeed all
bad men do) to the will of God; who had a share in seducing our first
parents, and still works in the children of disobedience; who was even
permitted to tempt Christ, and to possess Judas; in a word, who is styled
the _Prince of this world_, and, for the overthrow of whose empire,
principally, the Son of God came down from heaven: If I say, there be any
clear undisputed point of doctrine in the Gospel, it is this: the whole
scheme of Christianity depends upon it: and yet what pains have not been
taken to exterminate evil spirits, and disenchant the world of them;
although by such methods, as would render language itself of no use, and
confound all the rules of just criticism and sober interpretation?
These interpreters, I know, pretend (and many of them, I dare say, with
good faith) a zeal for the honour of God, in their attempts of this
nature. But let them look deep into themselves. They will, perhaps,
find, that they are paying, at the same time, a secret homage to their
own understandings, as if the whole of God’s moral government lay open
to their view, and they were able to pervade every part of it; that they
hold a revelation in no esteem, which puzzles their philosophy; and that,
therefore, they force a meaning of their own on the words of Christ,
because they are inwardly _ashamed_ of that, in which his words are most
naturally to be taken.
Leaving, then, these rationalists to the scrutiny of their own inmost
thoughts, let us inquire,
2. What regard is due to the _words_ of Christ, considered not as
articles of belief, but _rules of practice_.
And here, I doubt, it must be acknowledged that we have, all of us, more
or less, been _ashamed_ of our divine Master. For we are convicted of
this shame, whenever we disobey his commands, seen and admitted to be
_his_, on account of any repugnancy they have to the fashion of the
world, and to the consideration we affect to have in it. And who is
there, that, in this respect, can hope to stand clear of all blame, _when
he is judged_?
_Be meek and lowly of heart_, says our Lord. On the contrary, we are
proud and arrogant, that we may not be thought to want spirit. _Take no
thought for to-morrow_, are the words of Christ: but the world says, be
rich and great; and we think of nothing else but _to-morrow_. _Blessed
are the pure in heart_, says our spotless Preceptor: Are we not _ashamed_
of these words, when we had rather run the risk of any defilement, than
appear unfashionable? And so in a multitude of other instances.
Still, perhaps, we respect the rule, in some sort, and blame ourselves
for the breach of it.
But what shall we say of those, who reject the _word spoken_ with a high
hand, and offend against it on principle, as we may say, and by system?
_Go and sin no more_, says our Lord to an adulteress convict; and his
words imply a severe censure of having sinned at all, in that instance.
But are there none who think this a hard saying, who regard it as a
narrow prejudice; who treat the observance of it as a needless scruple;
nay, who pique themselves on the violation of it? Are there not some,
who delight in this sin by way of preference? who lay it down for a
maxim, that this commerce, under certain circumstances, and covered with
a certain veil of manners, is allowable, is reputable, is meritorious?
Nay, are there not those who would take it ill to be thought incapable of
aspiring to that distinction, which, in certain quarters, this commerce
supposes?
But let me not enlarge farther on this horrid subject. Consider only,
whether the parties concerned must not deride a precept, which they are
proud to transgress, and whether in the saddest sense of the word, they
may not be said to be _ashamed_ of it.
ANOTHER instance occurs, the mention of which, I am sensible, can be
of no farther use than to illustrate my subject. A placability of
temper, the forgiveness of injuries, the love of our enemies, nothing
is more insisted upon in the Gospel, than these virtues, which make
the very essence of a Christian’s temper. The precepts to this purpose
are numberless and express, and enforced with all possible authority.
Yet, to persons, in certain conjunctures, and of a certain rank in the
world, it would be an affront, but to remind them of their duty. We
know, who it was, that, _when he was reviled, reviled not again, when
he suffered, threatened not, but committed himself to him who judgeth
righteously_[286]. But what then? Neither precept, nor example, moves
him, who calls himself a man of honour, and is the slave of fashion. He
has command enough of himself to assume an air of tranquillity, and to
observe all the forms of good-breeding. But his hate is rancorous, his
resentment hot as hell, his revenge, immortal. Let his pretences be what
they will, his conduct cries aloud to all the world, “I renounce the
Gospel, I am _ashamed_ of the meek and merciful religion of Jesus.”
To conclude: We now understand in what ways, and in how many respects,
we may be _ashamed of Christ and his words_. In recounting those several
ways, whether respecting the name and dignity of our Lord, or the
rule of faith and practice, which he has given us, we have seen, at
the same time, how little, how base, how ungrateful, how impious, how
inexcusable, in all views, this _shame_ is: especially in all those,
who wear the name, and do not wholly disclaim the faith, of a Christian.
More words would be thrown away on those, who are insensible to such
considerations. Or, if any further remonstrance can be of use, if there
be a motive left that can reach their case, it must be one, that alarms
their fears, and shews the danger, the unspeakable hazard, to which they
expose themselves by this miserable conduct. And, in the whole extent of
God’s word, there is not, in the nature of things there cannot be, a more
awakening, a more terrible denunciation, than that of the text, which
therefore I cannot do better than leave with you in its own proper form,
as pronounced by our Lord himself—_Whoever shall be ashamed of me and of
my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in
his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy Angels_.
SERMON LII.
PREACHED JANUARY 29, 1775.
St. MATTH. xvi. 18.
_I say also unto thee, that thou art_ PETER, _and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_.
The way of giving a new name to an eminent person, more immediately
concerned in any great transaction; a name, expressive of that
transaction, and therefore proper to fix and perpetuate the memory of
it; this custom, I say, was of known use in the ancient world. Thus,
when God renewed his covenant with _Abram_, and engaged to _multiply
him exceedingly_, the name of this patriarch was changed to _Abraham_;
which name, in the Hebrew language, signifies _the father of a great
multitude_[287]: and, for a like reason, the patriarch _Jacob_ took the
name of _Israel_[288]; to omit many other instances of this usage, which
occur in the sacred scriptures.