Page images

the devils with their rage, hell with its torments, eternity with its horrors. We conjure you this moment, by the solemnity of all these motives, to return to God. I repeat it again, you cannot pretend distraction now, you cannot pretend forgetfulness now, nor can you avoid to-day, either the glory of conversion, or the shame of an impenitence that resists the most solemn and pathetic objects. But is it not true that none of these motives touch you? I mean, they do not reform you. For it does not argue any piety, if, after we have meditated on a subject, chosen our sentiments and our expressions, and, with an assemblage of Scripture-imagery, covered the pleasures of paradise, and the horrors of hell, with colouring the best adapted to exhibit their nature, and to affect yours; I say, it requires no pity to feel a moving of the animal spirits, a slight emotion of the heart. You are just as much affected with a representation, which, you know, is fiction, and exhibited by actors in borrowed guise; and you do us very little honour, by giving us what you bestow on theatrical declaimers. But is any one of you so affected with these motives, as to go, without delay, to make restitution of ill-gotten gain, to break off an impure connexion? I ask again, Can you contradict me? Can you refute me? know what a sermon can do, and we have Alas! we reason for affirming, that no known motives will change some of our hearts, although we do attend to them; and for inferring this just consequence, a thousand new motives would

be as useless as the rest.

In this manner we establish the truth, thus we prove the sufficiency of the Christian religion, thus we justify Providence against the unjust reproaches of infidel and impenitent sinners, and thus, in spite of ourselves, we trace out our own condemnation. For, since we continue some of us in unbelief, and others of us in impenitence, we are driven either to tax God with employing means inadequate to the ends of instruction and conversion, or to charge the guilt of not improving them on ourselves. We have seen that our disorders do not flow from the first; but that they actually do proceed from the last of these causes. Unto thee, then, O Lord! belongeth righteousness; but unto us confusion of faces this day,' Dan. ix. 7.

Here we would finish this discourse, had we not engaged at first to answer a difficult question, which naturally arises from our text, and from the manner in which we have discussed it. Could the Jews, to whom the state of the soul after death was very little known, be numbered among those who would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead? We have two answers to this seeming difficulty.


ducees, who doubted of them, as sectaries distinguished from the rest of the nation.

to do justice to these articles by fully discussBut as our strait limits will not allow us ing them, we will take another method of answering the objection.

divine inspiration of the Old Testament as 2. The Jews had as good evidence of the Christians have of the New. So that it might as truly be said to a Jew, as to a Christian, If thou resist the ordinary evidence of the truth of revelation, neither wouldest thou be persuaded though one rose from the dead' to attest it.

velation explained the state of souls after It is questionable, whether the Jewish redeath so clearly that Jesus Christ had sufficient grounds for his proposition. But were we to grant what this question implies; were we to suppose, that the state of souls after death was as much unknown as our querist pretends; it would be still true, that it was incongruous with the justice and wisdom of God to employ new means of conversion in favour of a Jew, who resisted Moses and the prophets. Our proof follows.

notions of God. They represented him as a Moses and the prophets taught sublime Being supremely wise, and supremely powerpressly declared, that God, of whom they ful. Moreover, Moses and the prophets exgave some sublime ideas, would display his pletely happy who obeyed his laws, and them power, and his wisdom, to render those comcompletely miserable who durst affront his the one hand, that Moses and the prophets authority. A Jew, who was persuaded on spoke on the part of God; and, on the other, that Moses and the prophets, whose mission was unsuspected, declared that God would render those completely happy who obeyed his laws, and them completely miserable who durst affront his authority; a Jew, who, in spite of this persuasion, persisted in impenitence, was so obdurate, that his conversion, by means of any new motives, was inconceivable; at least, he was so culpable, that he could not equitably require God to employ new means for his conversion.

1. We could deny that notion which
creates this difficulty, and affirm, that the
state of the soul after death was much better
understood by the Jews than you suppose.
We could quote many passages from the Old
Testament, where the doctrines of heaven objection is, not that the proposition of Je-
The most that can be concluded from this
and of hell, of judgment and of the resurrec-sus Christ was not verified in regard to the
tion, are revealed; and we could show, that Jews, but that it is much more verified in re-
the Jews were so persuaded of the truth of gard to Christians; not that the Jews, who
these doctrines, that they considered the Sad-resisted Moses and the prophets, were not

punishments which God will inflict on the
What does the gospel say more on the
wicked, than Moses and the prophets said
ny any particular explications of the doctrine
(I speak on the supposition of those who de-
of immortality in the Old Testament). What
did Jesus Christ teach more than Moses and
the prophets taught?
more particular detail; he told his hearers,
He entered into a
there was weeping and wailing and gnash-
ing of teeth; a worm that died not, and a
fire that was not quenched.' But the general
thesis, that God would display his attributes
the good, this general thesis was as well
in punishing the wicked, and in rewarding
known to the Jews as it is to Christians; and
this general thesis is a sufficient ground for
the words of the text.

very guilty, but that Christians, who resist it at an immense distance-I see it at a place, the gospel, are much more guilty. We which my crimes forbid me to enter-I see are fully convinced of the truth of this as-hell--hell, which I have ridiculed-it opens sertion. We wish your minds were duly affected with it. To this purpose we proceed to the application.

First, We address ourselves to infidels: O that you would for once seriously enter into the reasonable disposition of desiring to know and to obey the truth! At least, examine, and see. If, after all your pains, you can find nothing credible in the Christian religion, we own we are strangers to the human heart, and we must give you up, as belonging to a species of beings different from ours. But what irritates us is to see, that among the many infidels, who are endeavouring to destroy the vitals of religion, there is scarcely one to be found whose erroneous principles do not originate in a bad heart. It is the heart that disbelieves; it is the heart which must be attacked; it is the heart that must be convinced.

People doubt because they will doubt. Dreadful disposition! Can nothing discover thine enormity? What is infidelity good for? By what charm does it lull the soul into a willing ignorance of its origin and end? If, during the short space of a mortal life, the love of independence tempt us to please ourselves with joining his monstrous party, how dear will the union cost us when we come to die! O were my tongue dipped in the gall of celestial displeasure, I would describe to you the state of a man expiring in the cruel uncertainties of unbelief; who secs, in spite of himself, yea, in spite of himself, the truth of that religion, which he has endeavoured to no purpose to eradicate from his heart. Ah! see! every thing contributes to trouble him now.

under my feet-I hear the horrible groans of the damned-the smoke of the bottomless pit chokes my words, and wraps my thoughts in suffocating darkness.'

Such is the infidel on a dying bed. This is not an imaginary flight; it is not an arbitrary invention, it is a description of what we see every day in the fatal visits, to which our ministry engages us, and to which God seems to call us to be sorrowful witnesses of his displeasure and vengeance. This is what infidelity comes to. This is what infidelity is good for. Thus most skeptics die, although, while they live, they pretend to free themselves from vulgar errors. I ask again, What charms are there in a state that has such dreadful consequences? How is it possible for men, rational men, to carry their madness to such an excess?

Without doubt, it would excite many murmurs in this auditory; certainly we should be taxed with strangely exceeding the mat ter, were we to venture to say, that many of our hearers are capable of carrying their corruption to as great a length as I have described. Well! we will not say so. We know your delicacy too well. But allow us to give you a task. We propose a problem to the examination of each of you.

Who, of two men, appears most odious to you? One resolves to refuse nothing to his senses, to gratify all his wishes without restraint, and to procure all the pleasures that a worldly life can afford. Only one thought disturbs him, the thought of religion. The idea of an offended Benefactor, of an angry Supreme Judge, of eternal salvation neglectI am dying-I despair of re-ed, of hell contemned; each of these ideas covering-physicians have given me over- poisons the pleasures which he wishes to purthe sighs and tears of my friends are use- sue. In order to conciliate his desires with less; yet they have nothing else to bestow-- his remorse, he determines to try to get rid medicines take no effect-consultations come of the thought of religion. Thus he becomes to nothing-alas! not you-not my little for- an obstinate atheist, for the sake of becom tune-the whole world cannot cure me-I ing a peaceable libertine, and he cannot sin must die-It is not a preacher-it is not a quietly till he has flattered himself into a bereligious book-it is not a trifling declaimer lief that religion is chimerical. This is the -it is death itself that preaches to mecase of the first man. I feel, I know not what, shivering cold in The second man resolves to refuse nothing my blood-I am in a dying sweat-my feet, to his sensual appetites, to gratify all his wishmy hands, every part of my body is wasted es without restraint, and to procure all the -I am more like a corpse than a living pleasures that a worldly life can afford. The body-I am rather dead than alive-I same thought agitates him, the thought of must die-Whither am I going? What religion. The idea of an offended Benefactor, will become of me? What will become of an angry Supreme Judge, of an eternal of my body? My God! what a frightful spectacle! I see it! The horrid torches-the dismal shroud-the coffin-the pall-the tolling bell-the subterranean abode-carcases -worms-putrefaction-What will become of my soul? I am ignorant of its destiny-I am tumbling headlong into eternal night--my infidelity tells me my soul is nothing but a portion of subtle matter-another world a vision-immortality a fancy-But yet, I feel, I know not what that troubles my infidelity -annihilation, terrible as it is, would appear tolerable to me, were not the ideas of heaven and hell to present themselves to me, in spite of myself--But I see that heaven, that immortal mansion of glory shut against me-I see

salvation neglected, of hell contemned, each of these ideas poisons the pleasures which he wishes to pursue. He takes a different method of conciliating his desires with his remorse. He does not persuade himself that there is no benefactor; but he renders himself insensible to his benefits. He does not flatter himself into the disbelief of a Supreme Judge; but he dares his majestic authority. He does not think salvation a chimera; but he hardens his heart against its attractive charms. He does not question whether there be a hell; but he ridicules its torments. This is the case of the second man. The task, which we take the liberty to assign you, is to examine, but to examine coolly and

deliberately, which of these two men is the most guilty.

Would to God, our hearers had no other interest in the examination of this question than what compassion for the misery of others gave them! May the many false Christians, who live in impenitence, and who felicitate themselves for not living in infidelity, be sincerely affected, dismayed, and ashamed of giving occasion for the ques

tion, whether they be not more odious themselves than those whom they account the most odious of mankind, I mean skeptics and atheists! May each of us be enabled to improve the means which God has employed to save us! May our faith and obedience be crowned! and may we be admitted with Lazarus into the bosom of the Father of the faithful! The Lord hear our prayers! To him be honour and glory for ever. Amen.



1 COR. i. 21.

After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

IT is a celebrated saying of Tertullian, my brethren, that every mechanic among Christians knew God, and could make him known to others. Tertullian spoke thus by way of contrast to the conduct of the philosopher Thales towards Croesus the king. Croesus asked this philosopher, What is God? Thales (by the way, some relate the same story of Simonides), required one day to consider the matter, before he gave his answer. When one day was gone, Croesus asked him again, What is God? Thales entreated two days to consider. When two days were expired, the question was proposed to him again; he besought the king to grant him four days. After four days he required eight: after eight, sixteen; and in this manner he continued to procrastinate so long, that the king, impatient at his delay, desired to know the reason of it. O king! said Thales, be not astonished that I defer my answer. It is a question in which my insufficient reason is lost. The oftener I ask myself, What is God? the more incapable I find myself, of answering. New difficulties arise every moment, and my knowledge diminishes as my inquiries increase.

Tertullian hereupon takes an occasion to triumph over the philosophers of paganism, and to make an eulogium on Christianity. Thales, the chief, of the wise men of Greece; Thales, who has added the erudition of Egypt to the wisdom of Greece; Thales cannot inform the king what God is! The meanest Christian knows more than he. What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him: even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God,' 1 Cor. ii. 11. The Christian has more understanding than all his teachers,' according to the Psalmist, Ps. exix. 99; for, as far as the light of revelation is above that of nature, so far is the meanest Christian above the wisest heathen philosopher.


Of this superiority of knowledge we intend

to treat to-day. This St. Paul had in view in the first chapters of this epistle, and particularly in the text. But in order to a thorough knowledge of the apostle's meaning, we must explain his terms, and mark the oc casion of them. With this explication we begin.

Greece, of which Corinth was a considerable city, was one of those countries which honoured the sciences, and which the sciences honoured in return. It was the opinion there, that the prosperity of a state depended as much on the culture of reason, and on the establishment of literature, as on a well disciplined army, or an advantagecus trade; and that neither opulence nor grandeur were of any value in the hands of men who were destitute of learning and good sense. In this they were worthy of emulation and praise. At the same time, it was very deplorable that their love of learning should often be an occasion of their ignorance. Nothing is more common in academies and universities (indeed it is an imperfection almost inseparable from them) than to see each science alternately in vogue; each branch of literature becomes fashionable in its turn, and some doctor presides over reason and good sense, so that sense and reason are nothing without his approbation. In St. Paul's time, philosophy was in fashion in Greece; not a sound chaste philosophy, that always took reason for its guide (a kind of science, which has made greater progress in our times than in all preceding ages); but a philosophy full of prejudices, subject to the authority of the heads of a sect which was then most in vogue, expressed politely, and to use the language of St. Paul, proposed with the words which man's wisdom teacheth,' 1 Cor. ii. 13. Without this philosophy, and this eloquence, people were despised by the Greeks. The apos tles were very little versed in these sciences. The gospel they preached was formed upon another plan; and they who preached it were destitute of these ornaments: accord

[ocr errors]

ingly they were treated by the far greater part with contempt. The want of these was a great offence to the Corinthians. They could not comprehend, that a doctrine, which came from heaven, could be inferior to human sciences. St. Paul intended in this epistle to guard the Corinthians against this objection, and to make an apology for the gospel, and for his ministry. The text is an abridgment of his apology.

The occasion of the words of the text is a key to the sense of each expression; it explains those terms of the apostle which need explanation, as well as the meaning of the whole proposition: After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.'

The wisdom, or the learning, of which St. Paul speaks, is philosophy. This, I think, is incontestable. The first Epistle to the Corinthians, I grant, was written to two sorts of Christians, to some who came from the profession of Judaism, and to others who came from the profession of paganism. Some commentators doubt whether, by the wise, of whom St. Paul often speaks in this chapter, we are to understand Jews or pagan philosophers: whether by wisdom, we are to understand the system of the synagogue, or the system of the porch. They are inclined to take the words in the former sense, because the Jews usually called their divines, and philosophers, wise men, and gave the name of wisdom to every branch of knowledge. Theology they called, wisdom concerning God; natural philosophy they called, wisdom concerning nature; astronomy they called, wisdom concerning the stars; and so of the rest. But, although we grant the truth of this remark, we deny the application of it here. It seems very clear to us, that St. Paul, through out this chapter, gave the Pagan philoso phers the appellation wise, which they affected. The verse, that follows the text, makes this very plain: the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom' that is to say, the Greeks are as earnestly desirous of philosophy, as the Jews of miracles. By wisdom, in the text, then, we are to understand philosophy. But the more fully to comprehend the meaning of St. Paul, we must define this philosophy agreeably to his ideas. Philosophy, then, is that science of God, and of the chief good, which is grounded, not on the testimony of any superior intelligence, but on the speculations and discoveries of our own


There are two more expressions in our text, that need explaining; the foolishness of preaching,' and 'them that believe: after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. They who believe, are a class of people, who take a method of knowing God opposite to that of philosophers. Philosophers determine to derive all their notions of God, and of the chief good, from their own speculations. Believers, on the contrary convinced of the imperfection of their reason, and of the narrow limits of their knowledge, derive their religious ideas from the testimony of a superior

intelligence. The superior intelligence, whom they take for their guide, is JESUS CHRIST; and the testimony, to which they submit, is the gos pel. Our meaning will be clearly conveyed by a remarkable passage of Tertullian, who shows the difference between him, whom St. Paul calls wise, and him whom he calls a believer. On the famous words of St. Paul to the Colossians, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, chap. ii. 8, says this father; St. Paul had seen at Athens that human wisdom, which curtaileth and disguiseth the truth. He had seen, that some heretics, endeavoured to mix that wis dom with the gospel. But what communion hath Jerusalem with Athens? the church with the academy? heretics with true Christians? Solomon's porch is our porch. We have no need of speculation, and discussion, after we have known Jesus Christ and his gospel. When we believe we ask nothing more; for it is an article of our faith, that he who believes, needs no other ground of his faith than the gospel.' Thus speaks Tertullian.

But why does St. Paul call the gospel,' the foolishness of preaching? It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' Besides, he calls it, the foolishness of God: the foolishness of God is wiser than men,' ver. 25. And he adds, ver. 27, God hath chosen the foolish thing of the world to confound the wise.'

It is usual with St. Paul, and the style is not peculiar to him, to call an object not by a name descriptive of its real nature, but by a name expressive of the notions that are formed of it in the world, and of the effects that are produced by it. Now, the gospel being considered by Jews and heathens as a foolish system, St. Paul calls it, foolishness. That this was the apostle's meaning two passages prove. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM,' chap. ii. 14. You see, then, in what sense the gospel is foolishness; it is so called, because it appears so to a natural man. Again, We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and UNTO THE GREEKS FOOLISHNESS. You see in what sense the gospel is called foolishness; it is because the doctrine of Jesus Christ crucified, which is the great doctrine of the gospel, was treated as foolishness. The history of the preaching of the apostles fully justifies our comment. The doctrines of the gospel, in general, and that of a God-man crucified, in particular, were reputed foolish. We are accounted fools,' says Justin Martyr, for giving such an eminent rank to a crucified man," The wise men of the world,' says St. Augustine, insult us, and ask, Where is your reason and intelligence, when you wor ship a man who was crucified?'t

These two words, wisdom and foolishness being thus explained, I think we may easily understand the whole text. After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.' To know God is a short phrase, expressive of an idea of the virtues necessary to salvation; it * Apol. Secund.

↑ Serm. vini. de verbo Apost.

is equal to the term theology, that is, science | of our own wisdom, but to make us the rich concerning God; a body of doctrine, contain-present of revelation. ing all the truths which are necessary to salvation. Agreeably to this, St. Paul explains the phrase to know God, by the expression, to be saved. After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe :' and, a little lower, what he had called knowing God,' he calls 'knowing the mind of the Lord,' chap. ii. 16, that is, knowing that plan of salvation which God has formed in regard to man.

When therefore the apostle said, 'The world by wisdom knew not God,' he meant, that the heathens had not derived from the light of nature all the help necessary to enable them to form adequate notions of God, and of a worship suited to his perfections. Above all, he meant to teach us, that it was impossible for the greatest philosophers to discover by the light of nature all the truths that compose the system of the gospel, and particularly the doctrine of a crucified Redeemer. The accomplishment of the great mystery of redemption depended on the pure will of God, and, consequently, it could be known only by revelation. With this view, he calls the mysteries of revelation things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, but which God hath revealed by his Spirit,' ver.

9, 10.

We will enter into this discussion by placing on the one side, a philosopher, contemplating the works of nature; on the other, a disciple of Jesus Christ, receiving the doctrines of revelation. To each we will give four subjects to examine: the attributes of God; the nature of man; the means of appeasing the remorse of conscience; and a future state. From their judgments on each of these subjects, evidence will arise of the superior worth of that revelation, which some minute philosophers affect to despise, and above which they prefer that rough draught which they sketch out by their own learned speculations.

I. Let us consider a disciple of natural religion, and a disciple of revealed religion, meditating on the attributes of God. When the disciple of natural religion considers the symmetry of this universe; when he observes that admirable uniformity, which appears in the succession of seasons, and in the constant rotation of night and day; when he remarks the exact motions of the heavenly bodies; the flux and reflux of the sea, so ordered that billows, which swell into mountains, and seem to threaten the world with a universal deluge, break away on the shore, and respect on the beach the command of the Creator, who, said to the sea, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed,' Job xxxviii. 11; when he attends to all these marvellous works, he will readily conclude, that the Author of nature is a being powerful and wise. But when he observes, winds, tempests and earthquakes, which seem to threaten the reduction of nature to its primitive chaos; when he sees the sea overflow its banks, and burst the enormous moles, that the industry of mankind had raised; his speculations will be perplexed, he will imagine he sees characters of imperfection among so many proofs of creative perfection and power.

The apostle says, After the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God to save believers by the foolishness of preaching.' That is to say, since the mere systems of reason were eventually insufficient for the salvation of mankind, and since it was impossible that their speculations should obtain the true knowledge of God, God took another way to instruct them: he revealed by preaching the gospel, what the light of nature could not discover, so that the system of Jesus Christ, and his apostles, supplied all that was wanting in the systems of the ancient philosophers. But it is not in relation to the ancient philosophers only that we mean to consider the When he thinks that God, having enriched proposition in our text; we will examine it the habitable world with innumerable proalso in reference to modern philosophy. Our ductions of infinite worth to the inhabitant, philosophers know more than all those of has placed man here as a sovereign in a su Greece knew; but their science, which is of perb palace; when he considers how admiraunspeakable advantage, while it contains itself bly God has proportioned the divers parts of within its proper sphere, becomes a source of errors when it is extended beyond it. Human reason now lodges itself in new intrenchments, when it refuses to submit to the faith. It even puts on new armour to attack it, after it has invented new methods of self-defence. Under pretence that natural science has made greater progress, revelation is despised. Under pretence that modern notions of God the Creator are purer than those of the ancients, the yoke of God the Redeemer is shaken off. We are going to employ the remaining part of this discourse in justifying the proposition of St. Paul in the sense that we have given it: we are going to endeavour to prove, that revealed religion has advantages infinitely superior to natural religion that the greatest geniuses are incapable of discovering by their own reason all the truths necessary to salvalion and that it displays the goodness of God, not to abandon us to the uncertainties

the creation to the construction of the human body, the air to the lungs, aliments to the different humours of the body, the medium by which objects are rendered visible to the eyes, that by which sounds are communicated to the ears; when he remarks how God has connected man with his own species, and not with animals of another kind; how he has distributed talents, so that some requiring the assistance of others, all should be mutually united together; how he has bound men together by visible ties, so that one cannot see another in pain without a sympathy that inclines him to relieve him: when the disciple of natural religion meditates on these grand subjects, he concludes that the Author of nature is a beneficent being. But when he sees the innumerable miseries to which men are subject; when he finds that every creature which contributes to support, contributes at the same time to destroy us;

« PreviousContinue »