DISCOURSE V.

JOHN, CHAP. III.-VERSE 16.

God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In this passage of Scripture, and in many others, the redemption of the world by Christ Jesus is ascribed to the love and goodness of God towards mankind. Whatever other difficulties men may find in the gospel, one would suppose that it might be admitted to be, at least, a good representation of the divine mercy towards mankind, and fully to display that tenderness and compassion to our weakness and infirmities, which we all hope for, and with some reason expect to receive, from our great Creator, whose mercy is over all his works.'

The case being so, who would expect to hear any objection against the gospel derived from the topics of divine mercy and goodness? Yet some there are, who think the mercy of the gospel to be imperfect, and that nature gives far better hopes to all her children. They conceive the infirmities of human nature to be unavoidable, and the mercy of God to be infinite; and from these considerations they raise hopes as unbounded as they conceive the mercy to be. As they derive these strong assurances from natural reason, they conceive all promises of mercy to be unnecessary, and therefore to be suspected; and the argument is worked up not only to be an objection against the gospel revelation, but against all revelations, either past or

to come.

There is nothing of more consequence to the credit and authority of revelation, than to reconcile it to the natural notions and the natural hopes and expectations of mankind;

and indeed the promises of the gospel and the hopes of nature are founded on the same common principles. Ask a Christian, why did God redeem mankind by sending his Son into the world? He must answer, because men were sinners, weak, and miserable, and unable to rescue themselves from their wretched condition. Ask him, what moved God to express so much concern for such worthless objects? He must resolve it into the goodness, and tenderness, and paternal affection of God, with which he embraces all the sons of men.

Ask the deist, on what grounds he has hope and confidence towards God? He will reply, that he conceives it impossible for a beneficent being to be rigorous and severe towards the crimes and follies of such weak, foolish, and impotent creatures, as men: that their iniquities, though against the light of nature, yet flow from a defect in the powers of nature; since it is no man's fault that he is not stronger, or wiser, or better, than he was made to be; and therefore, though the light of reason renders him accountable for his actions, yet his want of power to do what his reason approves, will make his defects excusable in the sight of his equitable Judge.

You see how nearly natural religion and the gospel are allied in the foundation of their hopes and expectations. It is pity such near friends, who have one common interest, should have any disputes. But disputes there are.

The

Far be it from us to weaken the hopes of nature. gospel is no enemy to these hopes; so far otherwise, that all the hopes and expectations of nature are so many preparations to the gospel of Christ, and lead us to embrace that mercy offered by Christ, which nature so long and so earnestly has sought after.

But the question is, whether these natural hopes can give us such security of pardon, and of life and immortality, as will justify us in rejecting the light of revelation? Now, whoever depends on the forgiveness of God, admits himself to be in a case that wants pardon; that is, admits himself to be a sinner. This being the case of mankind in general, let it be considered,

First, That natural religion could not be originally founded

in the consideration of man's being a sinner, and in the expectation of pardon.

Secondly, That the hopes which we are able to form in our present circumstances, are too weak and imperfect to give us intire satisfaction.

Thirdly, That the coming of Christ has supplied these defects, and has perfected and completed the hopes of nature.

It must be allowed that the original religion of nature was agreeable to the original state of nature; and consequently, if natural religion is founded in the consideration of man's sin and weakness, it follows that man was originally formed a sinner and weak. But farther,

Supposing men made originally to be what we see they are, on what grounds are we to hope for an alteration for the better? For if it was consistent with God's goodness to put men into this state originally, how is it inconsistent with his goodness to continue that state, which was at first his own appointment? He could no more act inconsistently with his goodness at the bening of the world, than he can at the end of it. If reason therefore admits the present state of the world to be of God's appointment, it must never afterwards pretend to entertain hopes of being delivered from it; and without such hopes all religion is vain and useless.

It may be thought perhaps, that, supposing the present state of things to be of God's appointment, we cannot be answerable for what we do; for why should he blame us for doing the work he has appointed? Allow this reasoning; yet no religion can be built on it; for it can go no farther than to say that we ought not to be punished for our doings; it can never show that we have any title to be put into a better state: the utmost it can pretend to prove, is, that we are absolutely unaccountable; and, if so, there is nothing we can do to less purpose than to trouble our heads about religion.

Farther, if the laws of nature are the precepts of natural religion, as without all doubt they are, it follows that natural religion can be nothing else but obedience to the laws of nature; and, consequently, the genuine hopes of natural religion must be founded in obedience. This must necessarily be

the case; for all laws are made to be obeyed. No prince was ever so absurd as to make laws with this view, that his subjects might break them, and he show his goodness in pardoning their transgressions and yet this must have been the scheme of Providence, if natural religion was nothing else from the beginning but an expectation of pardon for sin.

Secondly, Let us take a view of our present state, without inquiring whether any and what change has happened to put us into this condition; and let us consider what may be expected from our present circumstances. Two things may be affirmed with certainty of the present condition of mankind: one is, that they have a sense of their obligation to obey the laws of reason and nature; which is evident from the force of natural conscience the other is, that very few do in any tolerable degree, and none perfectly, pay this obedience.

Let us examine then how religion will stand on these circumstances. It is impossible to found the hopes of religion on innocence and obedience; for obedience is not paid. On the other hand, absolute impunity cannot be claimed for all sins; much less can any degree of happiness, either present or future, be claimed in behalf of offenders. The utmost probability to which human reason can arrive in this case is, that the goodness of God and the weakness of man considered, God may favorably accept our endeavors, how imperfect soever our attainments may be. But is this reasoning built on infallible principles? Can any certainty or security arise out of this? any that can give rest or peace to the mind of man, ever inquisitive after futurity? Will you promise impunity to offenders on repentance? Impunity, mere impunity, is not the thing that nature seeks after she craves something more. But can the argument from the divine mercy be carried farther ? Is it not great mercy to pardon sinners? Can you with decency desire a reward for them? Our Saviour has told us, that when we have done our best, we must still own ⚫ that we are unprofitable servants;' and if we reflect that all our natural powers are the gift of God, and, consequently, our best services are but a debt paid to the donor; if we consider that in all we do there is no profit to the Most High; that his power and majesty are not exalted by our service, nor lessened by our

:

neglect; we shall find that our own reason teaches us the same lesson, and that, when we confess ourselves unprofitable servants, we give greater evidence of our understanding than of our humility. And if this be truly the case, what are the claims of natural religion? are they not the claims of unprofitable servants? the claims of those to whom nothing is due?

Thirdly, Let us now take a view of the conditions and promises of the gospel, and see whether we have any reason to be offended at them. As to the laws which are made the conditions of our happiness, they are not new impositions, but as old as reason itself, and the very same which natural religion stands bound to obey. Here then can be no complaint, at least no just one. So far then we are quite safe, that we can be no losers by the gospel, since it lays no new burden on us. In all other respects our case is extremely altered for the better. We feel ourselves easily tempted to do wrong, and unable to pay the obedience we owe to righteousness. Hopes, therefore, from our innocence we have none, but are forced to have recourse to the mercy of God. Now this mercy, which we hope for, the gospel offers us in the name of God. Have we any reason to suspect the offer? or to reject that very mercy, when promised by God, which our own reason teaches us to expect at his hands?

If we sin, nature has no refuge but in repentance; and how far that will go, we know not: nature has not, cannot teach us this knowlege. From the gospel we learn that true repentance shall never be in vain; shall not only protect us from punishment, but shall also set open to us the doors of life and immortality. There you may view religion once more restored to its native hope of glory and life for evermore. You will be no longer obliged to wander in the mazes and intricacies of human reason, and to speculate on the attributes of divine mercy and justice; the limits and boundaries of which are not to be determined by the wit of man, and the contemplation of which abounds with terrors as well as hopes: but you may see the clear and immutable purpose of God to give salvation to all who, with penitent hearts and a firm reliance on his word, endeavor after righteousness.

One would imagine the gospel should easily find credit with