Chapter I: FIRST, Infidelity may proceed from the Pride of Reason (4)

1. In the days of ancient paganism, two points in which religion was concerned, chiefly engaged the attention of their wise men; “GOD,” and the “HUMAN SOUL:” interesting topics both; and the more necessary to be well considered, because those wise men had little or no light on these subjects, but what their own reason might be able to strike out for them. And, had they been contented to derive, from the study of God’s works, _all that may be known of him_, by natural reason, _his eternal power and Godhead_, and had then glorified him with such a worship, as that knowledge obviously suggested; or, had they, by adverting to their own internal constitution, deduced the spirituality of the soul, together with its free, moral, and accountable nature, and then had built on these principles, the expectation of a future life, and a conduct in this, suitable to such expectation; had they proceeded thus far in their inquiries, and stopped here, who could have blamed, or, rather, who would not have been ready to applaud, their interesting speculations. But, when, instead of this reasonable use of their understandings in religious matters, they were more curious to investigate the essence of the infinite mind, than to establish just notions of his moral attributes; and to define the nature of the human soul, than to study its moral faculties; their metaphysicks became presumptuous and abominable: they reasoned themselves out of a superintending providence, in this world, and out of all hope, in a future; they resolved God into fate, or excluded him from the care of his own creation, and so made the worship of him, a matter of policy, and not of conscience; while, at the same time, they dismissed the Soul into air, or into the spirit of the world, either extinguishing its substance, or stripping it of individual consciousness; and so, in either way, set aside the concern, which it might be supposed to have in a future state, to the subversion of all morality, as well as of religion.

Such was the fruit of pagan ingenuity! The philosophers kept _gazing_ upon God, and the Soul, till they lost all just and useful conceptions of either: And thus, as St. Paul says, _they became vain in their imaginations; and their foolish heart was darkened_[196].

If from the Grecian, we turn to the oriental, and what is called, barbaric philosophy, what portentous dreams do we find about angels and spirits, or of two opposite principles, contending for mastery in this sublunary world; ingeniously spun out into I know not what fantastic conclusions, which annihilate all sober piety, or subvert the plainest dictates of moral duty? So true is it of all presumptuous inquirers into the invisible things of God, that, _professing themselves wise, they become fools_!

But these extravagancies of the heathen world deserve our pity, and may admit of some excuse. The worst is, that, when Heaven had revealed of itself what it saw fit, this irreverent humour of searching into the deep things of God, was not cured, but indeed carried to a greater, if possible, at least to a more criminal excess; as I shall now shew in a slight sketch of the mischiefs, which have arisen, from this audacious treatment even of the divine word.

2. Of the _Jewish_ corruptions I shall say nothing, because they did not so directly spring from a licence of speculation in the Rabbins: though their readiness in admitting unauthorized traditions, and in giving way to evasive glosses on the Law, had something of the same character in it, and led to the same ill effects.

But when the _Gospel_, that last and best revelation of the divine will, was vouchsafed to mankind, it might be expected, that the most curious would keep themselves within the bounds of modesty and respect: that they would thankfully receive the information imparted to them, would improve it to its right use, and acquiesce in the want of that light, which it was not thought proper to give.

But, no; the same ungoverned curiosity, that had wantoned so long in the schools of pagan philosophy, rioted, with a still more luxuriant extravagance, in the Christian church: as if that unholy flame had catched new strength from the fires of the altar; and the revealed articles of our creed had been only so much fresh fuel to feed and augment it.

Hence, in the days of the Apostles themselves, we hear much of men that, _strove about words, to no profit_—of _profane and vain babblings_, that tended to nothing but _ungodliness_[197], of arrogant reasoners, who _intruded into those things, which they had not seen, vainly puft up by their fleshly minds[198], of_ extravagant speculatists, who allegorized and explained away the fundamental articles of the faith, even the _resurrection_ itself[199]: which, in the literal sense, was rejected as a gross doctrine, not suited to the apprehensions of wise men.

Thus the seeds of this evil were early sown, and began to shoot up in those rank heresies, of which a full harvest presently appeared.

The Gnostic and Manichæan impieties led the way. Others, of as ill name, followed from all quarters; especially from the sects of pagan philosophy; which now pressed into the church, and, in their haste, forgot to leave their quibbles and their metaphysicks behind them. The evidences of the Gospel had, indeed, extorted their assent: but how ill prepared they were for the practice of the new religion, sufficiently appeared, when, instead of submitting themselves to the word of God, they would needs torture it into a compliance with their own fancies. Every convert found his own tenets in the doctrine of Jesus: and would be a Christian only, on the principles of his pagan theology.

Thus the pure and simple faith of the Gospel was adulterated by every folly, which delirious reason could invent and propagate; till, instead of _joy and peace in believing_, the destined fruits of Christianity _through the power of the holy Ghost_[200], all was dissonance and distraction: contentious pride, and fierce inexorable debate.

These mischiefs continued very long; when Plato, at one time, and Aristotle, at another, gave the law to the Christian world; and decided in all questions, or rather confounded all, which the subtlety of human wit could extract from the plainest articles of the Christian faith.

Even the barbarous ages could not suppress this fatal ingenuity. The wits of the school-men teemed with fresh chimæras, in the shade of their cloysters; as the minds of disturbed visionaries are observed to be more than commonly active and prolific in the dark.

At length Reason grew ashamed of these more than fruitless altercations: and a few divine men, at the Reformation, seemed resolved to take the scriptures for their guide, and to shut up all their inquiries in a frank and full submission to the written word. Still their former bad habits, imperceptibly almost, stuck close to them; for which they had only this excuse to make, that the zeal of their opponents forced them into dispute. Necessity, sharpened their invention; their successes, begot pride; and persecution, engendered hate. In this way, and by these steps, it was, that the Protestants grew ingenious and dogmatical. In opposition to the church of Rome, they would explain doctrines, of which they had no just ideas; founded on texts of Scripture, which they did not understand. Presently, as was natural for men in their blind situation, they quarrelled among themselves; and their presumption, we may be sure, was not lessened, but increased, by this misadventure. The issue of all these conflicts was, an inundation of dark and dangerous writings, on subjects[201], which confound human reason, and in which religion has no concern.

In process of time, however, these evils were, in part, removed. Philosophers[202] examined the scriptures with care, and explained them with reverence: and, what is more, Divines[203] became, in the best sense of the word, philosophers. Between them, much light was thrown on the general scheme of revelation. Its utility, its necessity, was shewn: its sublime views were opened: its evidences were cleared: its doctrines, vindicated: and its authority, maintained. Reason saw to distinguish between its own province, and that of faith: It grew severe in exacting its own rights: and modest in prescribing to those of the revelation itself.

But while men of superior sense were thus intent on reforming the bad theology of former times, the rest were too generally involved in it. They were unwilling to give up their darling habit _of gazing up into heaven_: that is, of framing, or adopting theories, which had neither solidity, nor use; and of explaining mysteries, which they could not understand[204].

Nor was the effect of this folly, merely to disgrace themselves. Christianity was too frequently seen in the false light, in which these rash adventurers had placed it: And men of shallow minds, and libertine principles, were ready enough to take advantage of all their indiscretions. For on this ground only, or chiefly, the various structures of modern infidelity stand. The presumptuous positions of particular men, or churches, are forwardly taken for the genuine doctrines of Christianity: And those positions, being not unfrequently either wholly unintelligible, or even contrary to the plainest reason, the charge of nonsense, or of falshood, is, thus, dexterously transferred on the Gospel itself. And, though the abuse be gross and palpable, yet, when dressed out with a shew of argument, or varnished over with a little popular eloquence, it shall easily pass on ill-inclined, or unwary men.

It is surely time for us to benefit by this sad experience. We, the teachers of religion, should learn, not to be _wise above what is written_: And you, who would profit in this school, should not think much to restrain your curiosity within these bounds, which, not the Scriptures only, but, right reason prescribes.

For let it not be surmized, that, in deducing this account of the mischiefs, which have sprung from ill-directed inquiries into religion, my purpose is in any degree to discountenance the use of reason in such matters. Christianity, if it be indeed divine, will bear the strictest examination; and it is the prerogative of our protestant profession to support itself on the footing of free inquiry. The way of argument is so far from being hurtful to the cause of revelation, that it is, in truth, the basis and foundation of it. We dishonour, we affront our holy faith, if we believe it hath, or can have any other. Only let us take heed, that Reason do her proper work; and that we do not dream, or fancy, or presume, when we think we reason.

In the instances, before given, the fault was in concluding without premises, and in arguing without ideas. When men call this _reasoning_, they forget the meaning of the term, as well as mistake the extent of their own faculties. We cannot reason on all subjects, because there are many subjects which we cannot understand: And by the term, _reasoning_, is only meant an act of the mind, which draws right conclusions from intelligible propositions. The nature of the infinite Being, the mode of his existence, the œconomy of his providence, are inscrutable to us, and probably to the highest angels. Why then intrude into such things, as no man hath seen, or can see? All that remains is, to admit no proposition, which is not clearly revealed; and, for the rest, to admit, on the authority of the revealer, what must be true, though we cannot, in the way of reason, perceive that it is so.

The inutility of all researches into divine things, without a strict adherence to this well-grounded principle, is apparent; the presumption of them, is ridiculous; but, above all, the mischiefs of them, are deplorable.

Men bewilder themselves, in inextricable difficulties: they disbelieve, on incompetent grounds: they give up the Gospel, and, with it, their best hopes, for the gratification of the idlest vanity: or they mis-spend their time in exploring articles of faith, instead of attending, to the obvious end and use of them.

To return to the text, which led us into these reflexions. The disciples were _looking up into heaven_, when they should have been considering how to follow him thither. Is not our folly the same, or rather is it not more inexcusable, when gazing, with our weak reason, on celestial things, we neglect the ends, for which a glympse of them is afforded to us? For there is not an article of our creed, which may not make us better, if not wiser: And obedience, that is, _faith working by love_, whatever some may think, is of another value in the sight of God, and of higher concern to man, than all knowledge.

SERMON XLV.

PREACHED JUNE 23, 1776.

St. MATTH. xiii. 55, 56.

_Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James and Joses and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are not they all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him._

We have, in these words, a striking picture of ENVY; which makes us unwilling to see, or to acknowledge, any pre-eminence in those, whom we have familiarly known and conversed with, and whom we have been long used to regard as our inferiors, or, at most, but on a level with ourselves. Our Lord’s neighbours and countrymen, who had been acquainted with him from his youth, could repeat the names of his whole family, and knew the ordinary condition, in which they lived, were out of patience to think that, so descended and so circumstanced, he should be grown at once into distinction among them, and should be taken notice of for abilities and powers, which they, none of them, possessed.

This temper of mind, I say, is here very graphically expressed; and it operated among the Jews with a more than common malignity, shedding its venom on those, whom not their own industry, but the special favour of Heaven had raised above their fellows, and had commissioned to go forth with extraordinary powers (of which they had frequent instances in their history) for the common benefit of themselves and of mankind. Whence it acquired even the authority of a proverbial sentence,—that _a prophet hath no honour in his own country, and in his own house_[205].

But, I mean not to enlarge, at present, on this moral topick. There is _another_, and very important use to be made of these words, which is, to let us see, “how very small a matter will serve to overpower the strongest evidence of our religion, though proposed with all imaginable advantage to us, when we _hate to be reformed_, or, for any other reason, have no mind to be convinced of its truth.”

This strange power of _prejudice_ is exemplified in the text, and will deserve our serious consideration.

Our blessed Lord had now given many proofs of the divine virtue, that was lodged in him; and was, therefore, moved, not only by the duty of his office, but, as we may suppose, by that regard which every good man hears to his country, to make a tender of his mercies to those persons, especially, among whom he had been brought up. Accordingly, we are told, that he came to his own city of Nazareth, and _preached in their Synagogue, insomuch that_ the people of that place _were astonished, and said, whence hath this man this wisdom_, which appears in his doctrine, _and these mighty works_, which we have seen him perform? And then, calling to mind the mean circumstances of his birth and family, before repeated, they expressed their dissatisfaction, or, as the text says, _were offended in him_.

But, were those circumstances a reason for rejecting a _doctrine_, which astonished them with its wisdom; and _works_, which they owned to be _mighty_, and above the common power of man? Rather, sure, the opposite conduct was to be expected; and, because they knew certainly, from the mean extraction and education of him who taught and did these things, that he had no means of _acquiring_ his abilities (if they were at all to be acquired) in an ordinary way, they ought, methinks, to have had their minds impressed with a full assurance, that they were owing, as they were by himself ascribed, to the power of God.

But, no: rather than admit a conclusion, which hurt their pride, and crossed their foolish prejudices, they stifle the strongest conviction of their own minds; and resolve not to receive a prophet, whom they had long desired and expected, who came to them with all the credentials of a prophet, and with the offer of what they most wanted, the remission of their sins, and the inestimable gift of eternal life. And all this, because the prophet was _the son of a carpenter_, in their own town, and because his _brethren and sisters_, persons of a mean condition, _were all with them_.

When we contemplate such a conduct, as this, we are ready to say, that it sprung from a more than common perverseness of character, and that the people of Nazareth were more unreasonable and sottish, as the common proverb made them to be, than the rest of _Israel_[206].

Yet, if we turn our thoughts on the other tribes and cities of that nation, on the inhabitants of Judæa, and even of Jerusalem, we shall find, that they reasoned no better than the men of Nazareth had done; and discovered equal, indeed, much the same prejudices as those, by which our Lord’s own countrymen had been misled.

For, what else was it to say, as they commonly did, that _no prophet could come out of Galilee_[207]; that he could not be the Messiah, because his disciples were illiterate fishermen[208], and not Scribes and Pharisees; because none of their rulers believed on him[209]; because he conversed, sometimes, with publicans and sinners[210]; because he did not observe their minute ceremonies or traditions[211]; because he manifested his divine power in healing the sick, and casting out devils, and not in breaking to pieces the Roman empire and restoring the temporal kingdom of Israel[212]; because—but I need not instance in more particulars: Universally, the Jews, of all places and denominations, rejected their Lord and Saviour for reasons, the most absurd and trivial; for reasons, that came from the heart, and not the head, which shewed they were under the power of some contemptible prejudice, and would yield to no evidence, unless that was complied with.

Still, “the Jews, in general, you will say, were unlike other people. Tell us how the polished Heathens reasoned on the subject of Christ’s mission; and whether, when the Gospel was addressed to them, they opposed it on the footing of those senseless prejudices, which you have enough disgraced.”

Luckily, I have it in my power to accept this challenge; and to shew you, on the best authority, that those men of enlightened minds and renowned wisdom were as weak in their sophisms, and as childish in their cavils against the new religion, as the Jews themselves.

We read in the Acts of the Apostles[213], that St. Paul came to Ephesus, a rich, learned, idolatrous city of Asia; that he applied himself more especially to the instruction of its Gentile inhabitants; _disputing daily, for two years together, in the school of one Tyrannus_, a teacher of rhetorick, or philosophy, as we may suppose, and a convert to the faith of Jesus. That his success was great, we may conclude, both from his long residence, and from _the special miracles_, which he wrought, among them. Yet, when _the word of God had grown mightily and prevailed, a certain silver-smith, who made silver shrines_ for the Goddess of the place, had credit enough with this well instructed city, because its trade was likely to suffer by the downfall of idolatry, to raise such an uproar among the people, that the Apostle’s labours were, at once, overturned by this powerful argument, and he, himself, compelled to leave them to their old infatuations: which was much such treatment, as Jesus himself had received from the Gadarenes; who, because he had permitted the devils, ejected out of one of their people, to enter into a herd of swine, and to destroy them, would not be saved at this expence, and required him, but civilly indeed, _to depart out of their coasts_. Now, was that _craft_, or this _husbandry_, a matter to be put in competition with the saving of their souls, which they had reason to expect from the preaching of Paul and Jesus? Or, is it not clear, that a petty interest, that is, a sordid _prejudice_, prevailed against the most precious hopes, supported by the fullest evidence?

But these were _prejudices_ of the ignorant vulgar. Let us see, then, what success St. Paul had in a nobler scene, among wits and sages, men of refined sense and reason, in the head-quarters of politeness and civility, in the eye of Greece itself, in one word, Athens[214]. Here, the great Apostle, who had the charity, and the ability, to _make himself all things to all men_, encountered their ablest philosophers; reasoning with them, even before their revered court of Areopagus, on their own favourite topics of _God, and the Soul_, in a strain of argument, which was clearly unanswerable; and concluding his weighty apology with _Jesus and the Resurrection_. But what was the effect of all this truth on the minds of these liberal heathens? Why the text says—_when they heared of the resurrection of the dead, some_ (that is, the Epicureans) _mocked_; and why? because their philosophy admitted no future state: while _others_ (the Stoics) _said, We will hear thee again of this matter_; but, for as poor reason, as the other, because their philosophy taught I know not what of a certain renovation of the world, which, for the credit of their sect, they were half inclined to confound with the Christian resurrection. You see, in both parties, the power of prejudice; where yet the occasion was the most interesting, the hearers the most capable, the ability or the speaker, independently of his assumed inspiration, unquestionably great, and where the conclusion, (so carelessly dismissed) was, after all, a question of FACT, which had no dependance on the fanciful tenets of either party.

I should weary you and myself, should I carry on this deduction through the following ages of the Christian church; and shew, as I might easily do, that the ablest men of science, who opposed Christianity, did it on grounds no better than those of these Athenian sophists. We see what these grounds were, in the fragments, that remain to us, of many ancient unbelievers[215], men, the most acute and learned of their times; while yet every man of sense, that now reads and considers their objections, will own, whether he be himself a Christian or not, that they are altogether weak and frivolous, and have the face not so much of sound, or even colourable arguments, as of faint and powerless prepossessions against unwelcome truth.

I shall only instance in _one_ of these prepossessions, which you think prodigious. The Roman empire, labouring under its own vices, and many _physical_ evils, which then lay heavy upon it, experienced, in the fourth century, that reverse of fortune, which, in its turn, the greatest nations must expect. But by this time Christianity had spread itself through all the provinces, and was become the religion of the state. In these circumstances, the Heathens, very generally, not the rabble only, but the gravest and wisest of the Heathens; ascribed these disasters to the abolition of idolatry; and thought it an unanswerable argument against the faith of Jesus, that it did not maintain their empire in that degree of splendour and prosperity, to which, in the days of pagan worship, it had happily been raised. And this miserable superstition, which we now only pity, or, perhaps, smile at, made so deep an impression on the minds of men, that the greatest of the ancient fathers, and particularly St. Austin[216], were scarce able, with all their learning and authority, to bring it into contempt.

Such was the power of _ancient_ prejudice against the Christian religion. But I hasten to set before you, in few words, what its tyranny has been in _later_ times.

The accidental and temporary commotions, which reformed religion produced in our western world, furnished in the minds of many, a notable _argument_ against the cause of Protestantism, which, when taken up and improved, as it soon was, by state-policy, had, indeed, a fatal influence on its success. But, even as to Christianity itself, that day-spring of knowledge, which broke upon us at the Reformation, and, as they say, has been brightening from that time to this, could not disperse those phantoms of prejudice, which are forever haunting the human mind.

Men, who piqued themselves on their sagacity, presently started up, and said, that, because popery had been found to be an imposture, Christianity was so too; and because the legendary tales of the cloysters had been convicted of falshood, that the Scriptures themselves deserved but little regard. And when afterwards these suspicions gave way to sober criticism and learned inquiry, _prejudices_ still arose, in various shapes, against the EVIDENCES, and the DOCTRINES of the Gospel-Revelation. We were told, that the _prophecies_ proved nothing, because some of them were too obscure, and others too plain. Could both these objections come from the oracle, Reason? Or, is it so much as likely, that either of them did so? when, for any thing it could tell, both the clearness, and the obscurity might be suitable to the occasion, and each, be fit, in its place. Then again, there were others bold enough to deny the existence of _miracles_, not, because many have been forged, but because none can be true. Was this, too, the voice of Reason? or, is not St. Paul’s appeal to common sense enough to disgrace this fancy to the end of the world—_Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that_ GOD _should raise the dead_?[217] God, who surely has _power_ to do this, or other miracles, when his _wisdom_ sees fit.

The _contents_ of the Gospel have also been treated, I do not say with as little respect, but with as little shew of reason and argument, as the evidences of it.

For instance, it was current, not long ago, that “Christianity was as old as the Creation;” the meaning of which wise saying was, that Christianity could not be true, because the _moral_ part of it was such, as nature taught, and had at all times been able to discover by its own light. Admit the fact: what follows? That therefore a divine revelation needs not repeat and could not occasionally enforce the laws of nature. Is reason, pure unmixed reason, accustomed to trifle at this rate?

But the complaint now is, that nature does not teach the _doctrinal_ part of the Gospel. And what then? Was it not equally to be expected that what concerns the essence and counsels and dispensations of God should be a secret to nature, unassisted by revelation, as that our practical moral duties should lie open to its view? And, if the force of this question be not generally felt, there is no doubt, I think, but it will, in a short time. For, it is to be observed of all these idle cavils, that they presently vanish one after another; and, when each has had its day, is, thenceforth, exploded even by unbelievers themselves.

But, ’tis time to come to a conclusion of this matter. The purpose of all I have said is, only, this, to shew, what weak and idiot prejudices have, at all times, been taken up against Christianity, and how generally they have been mistaken by the acutest of its enemies, for reasons of much weight.

And, if all, who hear me, be led by this experience, to suspect the infirmity of their own minds; if, having seen the disgraceful issue of so many fancies, which for a time have passed for shrewd _arguments_, but have, afterwards, appeared to be nothing more than childish _prejudices_, they can be brought to mistrust those, that occur to themselves; if, in a word, they can be induced to question the pertinence and force of what they too easily consider in the light of objections to Christianity, and to argue soberly and cautiously at least, if they will needs try their skill in arguing against it; the end, I have in view, will be answered, and neither my pains, nor your attention, will be thrown away on this discourse.

SERMON XLVI.

PREACHED FEBRUARY 4, 1776.

JAMES iv. 7.

—_Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you._

That there are Angels and Spirits, good and bad; that, at the head, of these last, there is ONE, more considerable and malignant, than the rest, who in the form, or under the name, of a _Serpent_, was deeply concerned in the fall of man, and whose _head_, as the prophetic language is, the Son of man was, one day, to _bruise_; that this evil spirit, though that prophecy be, in part, completed, has not yet received his death’s wound, but is still permitted, for ends unsearchable to us, and in ways which we cannot particularly explain, to have a certain degree of power in this world, hostile to its virtue and happiness, and sometimes exerted with too much success; all this is so clear from Scripture, that no believer, unless he be, first of all, _spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit_, can possibly entertain a doubt of it.

The subject, indeed, in its full extent, cannot be discussed at this time, nor conveniently, perhaps, in this place. But it may not be improper to make some general reflexions upon it; such as may serve to rectify your APPREHENSIONS of the doctrine itself, which, as I said, is truly scriptural, and to suggest, at the same time, the MORAL AND RELIGIOUS USES, we ought to make of it.

1. An opinion prevailed in the East very early, and was probably derived from some still more ancient tradition of the fall, corrupted, and misunderstood, that two, equally great and independent beings, a good and a bad, shared the government of the world between them; that these beings, of directly opposite characters, carried on a perpetual war with each other, crossed each other’s designs and operations, and, as either prevailed, produced the good or evil, the happiness or misery, of this life.

This opinion was, afterwards, taken up by some, who called themselves Christians; and was especially applied by those, who loved to philosophize (as too many did, and, at all times, have been prone to do) on the secrets of divine Providence, to the solution of that great question, concerning the _origin of natural and moral evil_.

Now, to this notion some countenance, it is thought, has been given by the scriptural doctrine of the Devil, who is spoken of, as _the Prince of this world_[218], as the _Prince of the power of the air_[219], as _the God of this world_[220], and in other terms of the like sort, denoting as well the _power_, as malignity, of this evil Being.

But, though these terms are, some of them, very strong, and certainly imply, not the existence only, but the extensive agency and influence, of this wicked Spirit, yet there is no pretence or colour for supposing that any thing like an equality to the God of heaven and earth, or an independency upon him, was intended to be expressed by them. For it is manifest, that no writings in the world exalt our ideas of that God so high, or set forth his supreme irresistible and sovereign dominion in so strong and decisive terms, as the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And with regard to the particular evil being under consideration, he is represented as _trembling_[221] at the very apprehension of the omnipotent Creator, as sentenced by his justice[222], and reserved for the execution of it[223]; as exercising a partial, a precarious, a limited power in this world, working only in the _children of disobedience_[224], and in them, consequently, no longer than they continue to deserve that character; and baffled in his attempts, not only by the Son of God, but by the _resistance_[225], by the _prayers_[226], by the _faith_[227], of Christians; as a rebel indeed, yet a rebel cast out[228] and disabled[229], and compelled to be an instrument, like all other things, in the hands of the Almighty[230].

But nothing shews more clearly, how abhorrent the spirit of Christianity is from the Manichæan doctrine, than the care that is taken throughout the Gospel-history to set forth the triumphs of Christ over the kingdom of Satan, in _casting out devils_; of which the instances are so many, and so circumstantially described, as if our Lord’s main or sole purpose had been to expose and explode that great impiety. He not only, himself, commanded, by a word, the devils to go out of the possessed, who accordingly obeyed him, and, in departing, deprecated that power[231], which they knew he had over them; but he, likewise, gave the same authority to his disciples, who went forth with his commission, and _returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us, through thy name_[232]. On which occasion, _he said unto them_, as exulting in his dominion over the enemy, and in the rapid, instantaneous, irresistible effect of it, _I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven_[233].

Thus much may suffice to shew, that, though the Gospel affirms the existence of evil spirits, and of one eminently so, yet that it gives no countenance to the doctrine of the two principles; as if the evil one were independent of the good, or that Satan could have the madness to think of rivalling the power of God, and of entering into a direct formal contest, as it were, with the Almighty. Whatever of this sort has been said, or insinuated, contradicts the express testimony, indeed, the whole tenour, of holy scripture, and is nothing but poetry, or misrepresentation.

2. Still, on the face of that account, which Scripture itself gives, it must be owned, that the power of Satan is great and even dreadful.

That he was permitted, in our Saviour’s time, to vex, and, in various ways, torment the BODIES of men, is clear from the number of _possessions_, we read of in the Gospel; which though some have laboured to explain away (as they have, indeed, the personality of the Devil himself) by reducing what is said of his agency to a mere figure of speech, yet I do not find that their attempts have, hitherto, been, or are likely to be, successful.

That he was, also, permitted to lay such trains, and contrive such measures, as had a fatal effect, sometimes, on the FORTUNES of men, not of those only, who were the immediate instruments of his malice, but of good and innocent men, who stood at a distance from him, we see by the sad catastrophe of that council, which _he put into the heart of Judas to betray his master_[234]; first, in the untimely death of the traitor himself, and then, by a series of connected events, in the crucifixion of the holy Jesus; and by several other instances. And, that he still retains this last power, as formidable as it truly is, must be concluded, if it be true, as we shall presently see it is, that he insinuates himself into the minds of bad men, and is concerned in exciting and promoting their wicked purposes. But, whether he be allowed to tyrannize over the bodies of men, is more problematical. That, for any thing we know, he may operate in the way of _possession_, I do not see on what certain grounds any man can deny: that he does so, I would not affirm, because the Scripture, our only guide as to what respects the agency of spirits, is silent in that matter. But the inquiry is of the less moment, because, since the gift of _discerning_ spirits hath ceased in the church, we have no means of distinguishing between _possessions_ and _natural disorders_; and, because, if we had, there is no known cure, or antidote, for them.

Had this been considered, all the mischiefs which have arisen from the trade of witchcraft and diabolism, would have been prevented. For they have proceeded, not from the supposed possibility of possessions, but from a fraudulent pretence of knowing when they take place, and from a superstitious belief of certain charms or spells, which may be applied, with effect, to the removal of them. Whereas, the fact is not cognizable by us, the symptoms, whether of the natural disorder, or of the pretærnatural infliction, being equivocal; and Christianity acknowledges no power in words, or ceremonies, to exorcise evil spirits. The only exorcism, which is now permitted to Christians, is that of faith and repentance, that is, of a good life; which every man may, and should apply, when it is needful, to his own case, and which, in that application, can surely do no hurt to himself, or others.

And, with this explanation, I leave the matter of _possessions_. As I have no authority to affirm, that there _are_, now, any such, so neither may I presume to say, with confidence, that there are _not_ any.

But, then, with regard to the influence of evil spirits at this day upon the SOULS of men, I shall take leave to be a great deal more peremptory. For this influence is so constantly supposed in the Gospel; there are so many admonitions, cautions, advices, relating to it; there are so many warnings given us by Christ and his Apostles against the snares, the wiles, the devices, the depths, of Satan, and these, conveyed in the form of general precepts, plainly calculated for the use of Christians in all ages; it is so expressly said, in Christ’s own parable of the sower, that the _tares_, that is, bad men, _are sown by the devil_, and that this husbandry will be carried on by him to the end of the world; it is so apparent, that his empire over bad men is exercised in the way of temptation and seduction, by putting bad purposes into their minds, and filling their hearts with corrupt imaginations and intentions; it is, besides, so evident that we are continually in danger of this temptation, by that clause in the Lord’s prayer, the daily prayer of all Christians—_deliver us from the evil one_[235]—for such is the proper sense of these words, which we translate, _deliver us from evil_—All this, I say, is so manifest to every one who reads the scriptures, that, if we respect their authority, the question, concerning the reality of demonic influence upon the minds of men, is clearly determined.

Nay, there are many instances, in history, and common life, of prodigious, almost unimaginable wickedness, strangely conceived and executed, which, if they do not prove this doctrine, in the way of sensible experience, perfectly fall in, and harmonize with it. It seems, as if the soul of some men were demoniacal, as the bodies of others have been. Let me appeal to yourselves. Suppose that a person, duly commissioned for that purpose, had dislodged as many devils from Nero or Cæsar Borgia, as our Saviour did from the poor unhappy man of Gadara, would this exorcism have surprized you more in the former case, than the latter? or would not this miracle have furnished us with a better account, than we can now give, of the transcendant wickedness, which _possessed_ the hearts of those monsters?

Indeed, in the simpler ages, our forefathers, who read the scriptures, and believed what they read, constantly ascribed any crime, with which they charged another, to _the instigation of the devil_; as you may see from the language of those forms, which are used, in criminal prosecutions to this day: and, if those charges be vow considered as _mere forms_, it was not always so; and a better reason will be required, than can be presently given, why any Christian should so conceive of them.

3. But to all this it be said, “that the doctrine, here laid down, as scriptural, is strange and incredible; that it makes the virtue and happiness of men depend on others, and not themselves; that it supposes a power, adverse to the great Creator and Governor, and able, on many occasions, to prevail against him, which, degrades both his _sovereignty_ and his _wisdom_; and that, above all, it represents weak simple men as exposed to the practices of great and subtle tempters, which overturn all our ideas of the divine _justice_ and _goodness_.”

The objection might be expressed in more words, but you see the drift and force of it. Now, in answer, it would be enough to say, that, let the difficulties be what they will, the doctrine is scriptural. But then, as to those difficulties themselves, I must further say, that they are not peculiar to this doctrine, as revealed in scripture, but bear equally against the natural doctrine of God’s moral government.

For do we not see that we all of us depend in a great measure, for the virtue and happiness we possess, on the conduct of others? Can we look about us, and not perceive an order of beings, I mean, _wicked men_, opposing themselves to the will of God, traversing his righteous purposes, and prevailing, for a time at least, against his primary intentions? Do they not pervert, corrupt, destroy multitudes every day; and are not the weak and simple permitted to fall into the snares of the wise and crafty? Do not these things evidently take place in our world, and is it thought any derogation from the attributes of God that they should be allowed to do so? Are not men, too oft, a sort of devils to each other, and can we wonder that vice and misery are much in the power of such agents? Yes, but _spiritual unseen_ agents!—Does that make any mighty difference? Is it necessary to suppose that _spirits_, of whatever rank, are privileged from abusing their free-will, and from being perverse and wicked, as we see men are? And, what if they are _unseen_? Have we reason to expect, from the present constitution of things, that we should suffer only from the practices of known and visible tempters? As if much of the vice and wretchedness of this life did not come upon us by surprize, as we may say, and when we think little of the cause, or the agent! A lye, flies in the dark, and misleads many into errors, and even crimes. A libel, gets abroad, nobody knows from whom, and yet shall tempt, perhaps drive, unwary multitudes, into rebellion. How many plots of wickedness are laid and succeed, when the plotter is out of sight and not so much as suspected! Nay, a certain cast of mind, or temperament of body, things, wholly unknown and unthought of by most men, shall, without great care and circumspection, be fatal to our virtue. Even the air, we breathe, (which, like the _prince of the power of the air_, is to us invisible) has a secret, and yet, sometimes, powerful influence on our passions. And shall we still disbelieve the seduction of an evil spirit, because he steals insensibly upon us?

But the true answer to all objections of this sort, whether men or devils be the tempters, is, that neither shall prevail, but by our own fault, by some carelessness, or wilful corruption of our own hearts, which are always sufficiently admonished, that the enemy is at hand, when evil thoughts, however produced, begin to stir in them. Then is the time to watch, and _resist_: and our resistance, the text tells us, will not be in vain. And what though legions of spirits lay siege to us! We may call _more than twelve legions of angels_, even the holy Spirit of God himself, to our assistance, if we please; for _greater is_ HE THAT IS IN US, _than he that is in the world_[236]. So _faithful is God_, after all our impious surmises and distrust of his gracious providence, _who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able_, though Satan himself be the tempter, _but will with the temptation also_, if we be careful to do our part, _make a way for us to escape_[237].

4. And this being the case, all objections to the doctrine here inculcated, fall to the ground; so that I have only to remind you, in two words, (for the time will not allow many) of the _moral and religious uses_, we ought to make of it.

I shall but mention ONE, of each sort.

1. In a RELIGIOUS view, the belief of this doctrine is of the utmost importance: for the whole scheme of Redemption is founded upon it. For _therefore_ Christ came into the world, and suffered upon the cross, _that, through death_, as St. Paul says, _he might destroy him, that had the power of death, that is, the_ DEVIL[238]. And, universally, _for this purpose_ (I quote the words of St. John) _the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the_ DEVIL[239]. It concerns us, then, infinitely, to take heed lest, by denying, or questioning, or explaining away, the existence and agency of the evil spirit, we subvert the foundation of our faith, detract from the glory of our Saviour’s passion, and unthankfully _despise the riches of his goodness_ in dying for us: nay, and lest we blaspheme the Holy Ghost; who was given to _help our infirmities_[240], to _strengthen us with might in the inner man_[241], and therefore to save us, from the power of _that spirit, which worketh in the children of disobedience_[242].

2. In a MORAL view it is, also, of great importance, that we entertain right notions on this subject.

I know that the _world_ and the _flesh_ are powerful enemies enough, and that we need not wish to signalize our courage by a contest with any _other_.

But if there _be_ another, we are concerned to know what our danger is, and to provide against it. Security is generally fatal; especially when the strength of the enemy is greater than we take it to be. Therefore, let us learn from scripture, what that strength is; and let us use all diligence in _resisting_ (as we have long since engaged to do) not the _world_ and the _flesh_ only, but also, the DEVIL. This is the advice of the text—_Resist the_ DEVIL. And then, too, is the advice of the Apostle Peter—_Be sober, be vigilant; become your adversary, the_ DEVIL, _as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour_[243] (words, by the way, which put the _personality_ of the tempter out of all question); _Whom resist_, says he, _stedfast in the_ FAITH; under the protection of which shield, _we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of_ THE WICKED[244].

SERMON XLVII.

PREACHED MARCH 29, 1772.

PROV. xvi. 6.

_By the fear of the Lord, men depart from evil._

All the authority of Solomon’s name and wisdom will, I doubt, be no more than sufficient to procure respect to this observation; which some may consider as a _trite and vulgar truth_, scarce deserving their regard; while others, perhaps, will not so much as allow it to be a truth at all, but indeed a _vulgar mistake_, arising out of the narrow views of ignorant or superficial declaimers. It may be slighted by one set of men, as conveying _no_ information, and by another, as conveying a _wrong_ one.

Let me attempt then to rescue the sacred text from both these imputations. Permit me to shew you, that the observation, it contains, is neither so generally received, as to make all further discourse about it frivolous and unnecessary; nor yet, on the other hand, of so questionable a nature, as to justify the scorn with which it is sometimes rejected.

I. To those, who are such fastidious hearers of the word, as to disregard an important truth, because repeatedly inforced upon them, I might reply that such truths can never be insisted upon too much, that our duty is to inculcate them, _in season, and out of season_.

But the fact is mistaken. We are so far from nauseating our hearers, with a too common and superfluous truth, when we remind them perpetually, that, _by the fear of God, men depart from evil_, that, on the contrary, very many want to be informed, or at least convinced, of it.

What the text affirms, is, that the _fear of God_, or the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE, is the proper guide of life. But look now into the _world_, at large: there the acknowledged rule of life, is FASHION. Look into the _civil or political_ world: there the boasted rule of life, is THE LAW OF THE MAGISTRATE. Look into the _learned_ world: there too commonly the only rule of life is each man’s own reason, or what he proudly calls PHILOSOPHY.

And will it now be said that _the fear of God_, is a principle too stale and too unquestioned to be discoursed upon and recommended to you from this place, when we see so large and so considerable a part of the world actuated by one or other of these different and discordant principles? But neither

II. Is the truth, though far enough from being generally received, so slightly grounded as to justify any man in the contempt of it.

It is a truth, taught of God, and revered by all wise men. It has nature, and reason, and experience on its side; and is only combated by the folly, the short-sighted policy, or lastly, the pride, of half-thinking and presumptuous men.

For to give, now, the godless principles, I before mentioned, a short and separate examination.

1. Tell _the man of the world_, that the religious principle is that by which alone he ought to govern himself, and you are presently told of the power and prerogatives of FASHION.

“_The fear of God_, he will say, may be the proper rule of monks and hermits; but must be qualified, at least, in many respects, by such as live in the world and mix in the society of it. They who have to converse with mankind, are to accommodate themselves to their notions and practices: they are to think with the rest of the world, or at least they are to act with them: they are to found their moral systems on the liberal and enlarged basis of approved use or custom. Their observation of human life must inform them of the ways that men take to conciliate the good will of their fellows, to prosecute their own advantages in the world, and to acquire the confidence and esteem of that society, in which they are stationed. What they find to be the rule of others, must be a rule to themselves. To do otherwise is not weakness, only: It is, besides, arrogance, incivility, inhumanity.”

All this is thought plausible by some men; and taken together, it must be owned, forms a very easy and commodious system: but how consistent with conscience, with duty, and with common sense, they will do well to consider. For if _fashion_ only be to regulate our conduct in all cases, I ask not what becomes of piety, but of humanity itself, I mean of those offices which we owe to others and to ourselves, and which reason dictates to us in every situation. Custom, you will say, is practical reason. But what! To be led blind-fold by the prevailing practice, whatever it be, what is it but to renounce our intelligent nature, and to live at hazard, and without reason? Further still: If it be sufficient to do as we see others _creditably_ do, without examining any farther, we shall often find ourselves involved, I do not say in the most irrational, the most inconsistent, but the most horrid practices. Then, killing with malice and with forethought, if the point of honour prevail, will be no _murder_: And, adultery, if the law of politeness so ordain, shall hide its atrocious nature under the mask of _gallantry_: Then shall society at large become a scene of fraud and rapine; good faith, shall be termed _simplicity_, and fair dealing, _folly_.

Go now, and say that _the fear of God_ is a needless restraint on free spirits; and count the advantages which ye have reason to promise to yourselves, from acknowledging no other guide of life, but _imperious fashion_!