Chapter I: FIRST, Infidelity may proceed from the Pride of Reason (6)

[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.

Just so, when one of the Apostles, known before by the name of _Simon_, had made a memorable confession of his Master’s being _the Christ, the son of the living God_, i. e. the redeemer, the prince of Israel, the Messiah foretold, our blessed Lord, to give weight and emphasis to this confession, confers a new name upon him. For he _answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven_: That is, no man hath revealed this great truth to thee, nor has any interest of man, any thing, indeed, but the spirit of God, influencing thy impartial and well-disposed mind, prompted thee to entertain and avow it thus heartily and publicly (the proofs of it not being, at present, so strong, as they hereafter shall be): Therefore, to express my approbation of this great testimony to a truth, which is the fundamental article of my religion, and, at the same time, to signify to thee the honour, with which I mean to reward thee for it, _I further say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_.

The name, _Peter_, signifying a _rock_ in the Greek language, implies, we see, the immoveable truth of the confession, here made, on which the Christian religion was to be built; and the immoveable firmness, too, of the Confessor, who should have a share, with the other Apostles, in supporting the whole fabric, and be himself, in point of time, the first stone, on which the glorious superstructure was to be made.

It follows—_and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_—that is, _Death_, or _Destruction_ (for that, only, the oriental phrase—_the gates of hell_—here signifies[289]) shall never prevail against this church, being founded on thee, and the testimony, made by thee, as on a rock of ages, which shall never give way, or be removed.

We see, then, the full meaning of this famous text, which contains, in effect, TWO prophecies: ONE, respecting the foundation of the Christian church, and (so far as the Apostle Peter was personally concerned in the prediction) then verified, when Peter laid the first stone of this august building in the converts made by him both among the Jews[290] and Gentiles[291]: the OTHER prophecy, respecting the perpetuity of this church; which the divine Providence would, in no future age of the world, permit to be destroyed.

So that, not the supremacy of Peter over the rest of the Apostles (as the church of Rome vainly pretends), but the priority of his claim, in point of time, to signal services in the conversion of mankind, is expressed in this memorable promise made to Peter—_on this rock will I build my church_: and, for the second assurance, here given, and which, to so zealous a master-builder, as our Apostle, must have been singularly welcome—_that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it_—we may, now, by the experience of more than seventeen hundred years, understand, how far it has been, and how likely it is, in the full extent of the words, to be fulfilled.

But, to see little more distinctly what this experience is, and what presumption arises out of it for the truth of our holy religion, let us call to mind, if you please, the more remarkable of those attacks, which have been made, at different times, on the church of Christ, and yet how constantly and successfully they have been repelled.

I. No sooner had the foundations of the church been laid on the _rock_ of this testimony—that _Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God_—than the storms of persecution arose, and beat violently upon it. Nor was it, indeed, strange, that this new doctrine, published every where, with great boldness, by men who had been eye-witnesses of what they affirmed, and calculated to overturn all the favourite maxims and usages of the world, should meet with the fiercest opposition. And how easy did it seem for that world to crush the infant society, now struggling for life in the hands of twelve poor, illiterate, and friendless men, if the decree of Heaven had not gone forth—_that the gates of hell should not prevail against it_!

I know, indeed, that this violence of persecution was, in the end, of advantage to the Christian cause; and, from the nature of the human mind, when once persuaded of any thing, true or false, might be expected to be so. For cruelty, in such cases, only excites an unconquerable firmness and perseverance. But what was persuasion in succeeding converts to the gospel of Christ, was knowledge, or rather the infallible evidence of sense, in the first publishers of it. The Apostles witnessed a matter of fact, when they made known the resurrection of Christ, on which their whole doctrine rested. And it is not in nature for any single man, much less for twelve men, to suffer, and to die, for a false fact, not taken upon trust from others, but asserted on their own proper and personal experience. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, they neither saw, nor felt, nor conversed with him after his resurrection, that is, they had no persuasion for force to harden into obstinacy, but a consciousness of falshood in their attestation, which could not have held out against the rage of their persecutors[292].

If it be said, that criminals are often supposed, and not without reason, to die with a falshood in their mouths, I answer, it is very possible: but, besides that the Apostles gave no signs, in the rest of their conduct, of a want of principle, by declaring the truth, in this case, they might have saved their lives, whereas a criminal, for the most part, is but the more likely to lose his, by a true confession.

Or, if, lastly (for suspicion, I am aware, is not easily satisfied, if) the perseverance of the martyred apostles be accounted for from a false point of honour, I admit, that this strange principle sometimes overpowers conviction; but rarely, in any number of men confederated in the same cause, and, least of all, in a number of men of so plain and artless characters, as the Apostles.

On the whole, we have reason to conclude, that, if Christianity had not been true, it must have perished with its first preachers: at least, it cannot be denied, that in outliving the violence, with which it was assaulted, both by Jew and Gentile, on its appearance in the world, this religion has thus far verified the remarkable prediction of its author.

II. The external peace of the church was scarce settled under Constantine, when internal commotions shook its frame, and with a violence, which was likely to bring on, and that in no long time, its entire dissolution. By these commotions, I mean the heresies, that sprung up in abundance, and distracted the Christian world for several centuries. The zeal, or rather fury, with which these disputes were carried on, was unappeasable; and, if it be true, that _a house divided against itself cannot stand_, there was reason to expect that the houshold of Christ would exemplify this maxim: While, at the same time, the Christian name was so dishonoured by these contentions, and the lives, as well as the faith, of Christians, so polluted by them, that believers themselves were almost tempted to renounce a profession, which laboured under so much infamy; and the rest of the world could scarce fail to contract an incurable aversion to it.

This, indeed, was so much the case, and the advantage, given to the enemies of our faith, by these scandalous abuses of it, so great, that one is not surprised to find