CHAPTER III.

CHRISTIANITY OF INFINITE IMPORTANCE.

Out of the preceding view of the Scripture system, there arise some general observations upon which I wish to fix your attention, because I think they may be of use in preparing your minds for the more particular discussions upon which we are to enter.

The first observation respects the importance of Christianity.

This is a subject upon which, for the reason which I mentioned in the outset, I have hitherto hardly said any thing. The common method is, to place what is called the necessity of revelation before the evidences of it, and to argue from the necessity to the probability of its having been given. But I have always thought this an unfair and a presumptuous mode of arguing. It appears to me, that we are so little qualified to judge what is necessary, and so little entitled to build our expectation of heavenly gifts upon our own reasonings, that the only method becoming our distance, and our ignorance of the divine counsels, is first to establish the fact that a revelation has been given, and then to learn its importance by examining its contents. Agreeably to this method, I have led you through the principal evidences of the divine mission of Jesus; I have given a general account of the system contained in those books, which his servants wrote by inspiration; and I now mean to deduce from that account the importance of what the inspired books contain.

There are two views under which the importance of Christianity may be stated. We may consider the gospel as a republication of the religion of nature, or we may consider it as a method of saving sinners.

SECTION I.

We may consider the religion of Jesus as a republication of the WE religion of nature. I have adopted this phrase, because, from the very respectable authority by which it has been used, as well as from its own significancy, it has become a fashionable phrase; and yet there are two capital mistakes which the unguarded use of it may occasion. The first is an opinion, that Christianity is merely a republication of the religion of nature, containing nothing more than the doctrines and duties which may be investigated by the light of reason. But it follows clearly from the general view of the Scripture system,

that this is an imperfect and false account of Christianity; because in that system there are doctrines concerning the Son and the Spirit, and their offices in the salvation of men, of which reason did not give any intimation; and there are duties resulting from the interposition recorded in the gospel, which could not possibly exist till the knowledge of that interposition was communicated to man. The gospel then, professing to be more than a republication of the religion of nature, a view of its importance, proceeding upon the supposition that it is merely a republication, must be so lame as to do injustice to the system thus misrepresented.

The second mistake, which the unguarded use of this phrase may occasion, is an opinion that the religion of nature is essentially defective either in its constitution, or in the mode of its being promulgated, and that the imperfection originally adhering to it called for amendment. But this is an opinion which appears at first sight unreasonable. If the Creator intended man to be a religious creature, it is to be presumed that he endowed him in the beginning with the faculty of attaining such a knowledge of the divine nature as might be the foundation of religion. If he intended him to be a moral accountable creature, it is to be presumed that he furnished him with a rule of life. These presumptions are confirmed, when we proceed to examine the subject closely; for we cannot analyze the human mind, without discovering that an impression of the Supreme Being is congenial to many of its natural sentiments. There is a strain of fair reasoning, by which we are conducted, from principles universally admitted, to some knowledge of the divine attributes. There are obligations implied in the dependence of a reasonable being upon his Creator. There is a certain line of conduct dictated by the constitution and the circumstances of man; and there is a general expectation with regard to the future conduct of the divine government, created by that part of it which we behold, and corresponding to hopes and fears of which we cannot divest ourselves. All this makes up what we call natural religion. And it is manifestly supposed in Scripture; for we read there, that "that which may be known of God is manifest among them for God hath shown it to them; for the invisible things of God are clearly seen ever since the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead : so they are without excuse, because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God." We read that those who had no written law " are a law to themselves, their conscience bearing witness."* And, through the whole of Scripture, there are appeals to those notions of God which are agreeable to right reason, and to that sense of right and wrong which is there considered as a part of the human constitution. Although, therefore, some zealous unwise friends of Christianity have thought of doing honour to revelation by depreciating natural religion, and although you will find that some sects of Christians have been led by their peculiar tenets to deny that man has naturally any knowledge of God, you will not suppose that all who use the phrase, Republication of the religion of nature, adopt these opinions, or even approach to them; and you will find, that the

See Macknight's translation of Rom. ii. 15; i. 18, 19, 20.

soundest and ablest divines consider natural religion as suited to the circumstances of man at the time of his creation. If you take the known history of the human race in conjunction with the principles of human nature, you will readily perceive that the opinion of these divines is well founded. There would undoubtedly be transmitted from the first man to his descendants a tradition of his coming into the world, and of his finding every thing there new; and if you admit the truth of the Mosaic account, this tradition, by the long lives of the first inhabitants of the earth, would pass for many centuries through very few hands. It is to be presumed, too, even independently of the authority of Moses, that, in the infancy of the human. race, there would be a more immediate intercourse between man and his Creator, than after the connections of society had been formed and established upon the earth. This tradition and this revelation might fix the attention of the posterity of the first man upon those suggestions and deductions of reason, which give some knowledge of the being, the attributes, and the moral government of God; and there might be thus a foundation laid for the universal observance of some kind of worship as the expression of gratitude and trust. From a sense of dependence upon the Creator, there would arise the feeling of obligation to serve him, so that natural religion would come in aid of the dictates of conscience; and the obedience which man yielded to the law of morality, while by the constitution of his nature it was rewarded with inward peace, would enable him, by his apprehension of a righteous Sovereign of the universe, to look forward with good hope to those future scenes of the divine government under which he might be permitted to exist. I do not say that this complete system of pure natural religion ever was established in any country merely by reasoning: but I do say, that all the parts of it may be referred to principles of reason; that early tradition called and directed men to apply these principles to the subject of religion; and that, had they been properly followed out, man would have been possessed, independently of any extraordinary revelation, of a ground of religion, and a rule of life, suited to the circumstances in which he was created.

Having guarded against the second mistake which I mentioned, by fixing in your minds this preliminary point, that the religion of nature was not originally defective, you proceed to consider what importance the Gospel derives from being a republication of that religion.

You will begin with observing it to be very conceivable that the whole system of natural religion may admit of being proved by reason, and yet that particular circumstances may have prevented that continued exercise of reason, by which the knowledge of it might have been attained. We often see men remaining, through their own fault or neglect, ignorant of many things which they might have known; and the recency of many great discoveries is a proof how slowly the human mind advances to truth, although no one is so absurd as to infer, from the abounding of error, that truth is not agreeable to reason. If there was an early departure from the duties of natural religion, it is plain that this circumstance in the history of mankind would estrange them from that God whom they were conscious of disobeying, would weaken the original impression of that

law which they were breaking, and would overcast the hopes connected with the observance of it. The universal tradition of the creation might, for a few generations, in some measure counterbalance this tendency. But as men spread over the earth, the memory of the truths received from their first parents would become fainter; as their passions were excited by a multiplicity of new objects, the restraints to which they had submitted in a simpler state of society would lose their power, and a growing corruption of religion would accompany the progress of vice. This is the very account of the matter which the apostle Paul gives us. "When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." These are the words of Paul in his Epistle to the Romans; and the best commentary upon them is the religious history of the heathen world. You need not look to those savage tribes, where the faculties of the human mind, depressed by unfavourable circumstances, have a very limited range, and man appears raised but a few degrees above the beasts with whom he associates. Recollect the polished and learned nations, whose philosophy we study, and to whose writings every scholar feels and owns his obligations; and in their religious history you will find abundant confirmation of the words of St. Paul. Although reason was there highly cultivated; although art and science made distinguished progress; although the public establishments of religion were magnificent and expensive, yet the fathers of science, in respect of religious knowledge were as children, "and the world by wisdom knew not God." There was a darkness with regard to the nature of God. The knowledge of one, supreme Being, the Creator and Ruler of all things, the rewarder of those who seek him, the friend and protector of the good, and the avenger of the wicked, this most valuable knowledge was lost in the belief of a multiplicity of gods, who had the passions, the vices, the contentions of men, whose character and conduct, instead of administering comfort in distress, and strength under temptation, sunk the afflicted in despair, and corrupted the manners of the worshipper. There was a darkness with regard to the method of pleasing the gods. Multiplied sacrifices offered with much doubt, and with the fear of giving offence, a pageantry of costly ceremonies, a wearisome round. of superstitious observances, made up the religion of the heathen, and excluded that worship in spirit and in truth, which it is the honour of a reasonable creature to offer to the Searcher of hearts. There was a darkness with regard to the duties of life. The voice of conscience was not only left without the support of true religion, but was in many instances perverted by corrupt systems. No scholar will deny, that the laws and the constitution of ancient states cherished certain public virtues which were both useful and splendid; and the names of many citizens will be celebrated as long as the world lasts, for heroism, the love of their country, disinterestedness, and generosity. But any person, who takes a near view of the manners of the great

body of the people in ancient times, finds that the established system of morality was loose and debauched; for, although the state often required great exertions from the citizens for its own preservation, no restraint was imposed upon the indulgence of many evil passions, and the grossest vices were conceived to be consistent with pure virtue. There was still greater darkness with regard to the hopes of men. The impression of a future state is so congenial to the mind of man, that it could not be effaced. But the opinions generally entertained with regard to the future place of both the good and the bad were mixed with a number of childish fables, which exposed to ridicule, and even brought into suspicion, that important truth which they only obscured. The wise men who arose in different ages, although they did not implicitly adopt the vulgar errors, were not fitted to dispel this darkness. Some were led by the absurdity of the received creeds rashly to reject the fundamental articles of religion; and that they might depart as far as possible from the superstition of their countrymen, they denied the being of a God, or they excluded him from the government of the world. Those who did not thus contradict the natural sentiments of the human mind were unable to divest themselves of an attachment to prevailing opinions and universal practice; and while their writings contain many traces of a rational system, they sacrificed in public to the gods of their country. Their writings and their discourses did enlighten the minds of their scholars. But these scholars were few. The great body of the people had neither leisure nor capacity to follow their investigations. But they saw that the practice of the philosophers did not, in any material respect, differ from their own. The authority of the wise, therefore, instead of correcting, confirmed the popular system, and that system, founded in ignorance of the true God, took deep root in the minds of men, and was established by law, by example, and by custom.

I need not dwell longer upon this picture of the religious state of the heathen world. You find it drawn at full length in the books which are commonly read upon this subject, particularly in Clarke's Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion, in Leland's Advantages of the Christian Revelation, and in the first volume of Bishop Sherlock's Discourses. But even from the slight sketch that has now been given, it is manifest that there is a very great difference between the system of natural religion, which we are able to deduce from principles of reason, and the forms of religion which obtained in the most enlightened nations. It is true that the land of Judea enjoyed, from very early times, a revelation of one God. The Maker of heaven and earth was worshipped in that country for many ages without the mixture of idolatry, and a system of pure morality was contained in the books that were read in the Jewish synagogue. But the revelation which distinguished this narrow district was not intended, and was not fitted, to be the light of the world. At the time of our Saviour's birth, it was obscured by tradition; and the law given to the children of Israel, instead of being able to correct the prevailing superstition, stood in need of a more spiritual interpretation than it received from the Jewish doctors. But whatever was the measure of light which the Jews enjoyed, it extended in very scanty uncertain portions to other nations, and they were, as the apostle speaks, "without God,