Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The

wrath of God is plainly revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteoufness of men? truths of the gospel are fo very clear and powerful, and fuch an improvement of natural light, that men muft ufe great force and violence to fupprefs them, and to hinder the efficacy of them upon their lives. And this is a certain rule, by how much the greater our knowledge, by fo much the lefs is our excufe, and fo much the greater punishment is due to our faults. So our Lord hath told us, Luke xii. 47. That fervant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, fhall be beaten with many stripes. And John ix. 41. If ye were blind, (fays our Saviour to the Jews) ye fhould have no fin. So much ignorance as there is of our duty, fo much abatement of the wilfulness of our faults; but if we fin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more facrifice for fin, but a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, fays the Apoftle to the Hebrews, chap. x. 26. 27. If we fin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth; implying that men cannot pretend ignorance for their faults, after fo clear a revelation of the will of God, as is made to mankind by the gospel.

And upon this confideration it is, that our Saviour doth fo aggravate the impenitency and unbelief of. the Jews, because it was in oppofition to all the advantages of knowledge, which can be imagined to be afforded to mankind, John xv. 22. 23. 24. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had fin; that is, in comparison their fin had been much more excufable; but now they have no cloak for their fin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father alfo. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had fin; but now have they both feen and hated both me and my Father. is that? Our Saviour means, that they had now finned against all the advantages of knowing the will of God, that mankind could poffibly have: At once oppofing natural light, which was the difpenfation of the Father; and the cleareft revelation of God's VOL. V.

H h

How

will

will, in the difpenfation of the gospel by his Son now have they both feen and hated both me and my father.

The two remaining obfervations I fhall referve to another opportunity.

SERMON CXII.

The danger of all known fin, both from the light of nature and revelation.

ROM. i. 18, 19,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteoufnefs; because that which may be known of God is manifeft in them, for God hath shewed it unto them.

I

The fecond fermon on this text.

Have handled four of the obfervations which I raised from thefe words, and fhall now proceed to the other two that remain.

The fifth obfervation was, that the natural knowledge which men have of God, if they live contrary to it, is a fufficient evidence of their holding the truth of God in unrighteousness. For the reafon why the Apoftle chargeth them with this, is, because that which may be known of God is manifeft, in that God bath fhewed it unto them.

There is a natural knowledge of God, and of the duty we owe to him, which the Apostle calls to yvwSòv Tou cou, that of God which is obvious to be known by the light of nature, and is as much as is abfolutely neceffary for us to know. There is fomething of God that is incomprehenfible, and beyond the reach of our understandings; but his being and effential perfections may be known, which he calls his etermal power and godhead; thefe he tells us are clear

ly

by feen, being understood by the things which are made; that is, the creation of the world is a plain demon ftration to men, of the being and power of God; and if fo, then God is naturally known to men; the contrary whereof Socinus pofitively maintains, tho' therein he be forfaken by most of his followers; an opinion in my judgment, very unworthy of one, who not without reafon, was efteemed fo great a mafter of reafon; and (though I believe he did not fee it) undermining the ftrongest and fureft foundation of all religion, which, when the natural notions of God are once taken away, will certainly want its beft fupport. Befides that by denying any natural knowledge of God, and his effential perfections, he freely gives away one of the moft plaufible grounds of oppofing the doctrine of the Trinity. But because this is a matter of great consequence, and he was a great man, and is not to be confuted by contempt, but by better reafon, if it can be found; I will confider his reasons for this opinion, and return a particular anfwer to them.

First, He fays that if the knowledge of God were natural, it would not be of faith; but the Apoftle fays, that we must believe that he is. The force of which argument, if it have any, lies in this, that the object of faith is divine revelation, and therefore we cannot be faid to believe what we naturally know. The fchoolmen indeed fay fo; but the fcripture ufeth the word faith more largely, for a real perfuafion of any thing, whether grounded upon fenfe, or reafon, or divine revelation. And our Saviour's fpeech to Thomas, Because thou haft feen, thou haft believed, does fufficiently intimate, that a man may believe what he fees; and if fo, what fhould hinder, but that a man may be faid to believe what he naturally knows; that is, be really perfuaded that there is a God from natural light?

Secondly, His next argument is, because the fame Apoftle concludes Enoch to have believed God, becaufe he pleafed God, and without faith it is impoffible to please him: From whence he fays, it is certain that men may be without this belief, which

Hh 2

if

if it be natural they cannot. Indeed if the Apostle bad faid, that whoever believes a God, muft of neceffity obey and please him, then the inference had been good, that all men do not naturally believe a God, because it is certain they do not please him : But it is not good the other way, no more than if à man fhould argue thus, that because whoever acts reasonably, must be endowed with reafon, therefore men are not naturally endowed with reafon. For as men may naturally be endowed with reafon, and yet not always make ufe of it; fo men may naturally know and believe a God, and yet not be careful to please him.

His third argument is, that the fcripture fays, that there are fome that do not believe a God, for which: he cites that of David, The fool bath faid in his heart there is no God; which certainly proves that bad men live fo, as if they believed there were no God; nay, it may farther import, that they endeavour as much as they can, to stifle and extinguifh the belief of a God in their minds, and would gladly perfuade theifelves there is no God, because it is convenient for them there fhould be none; and whether David meant fo or not, it is very probable that fome may arrive to that height of impiety, as for a time at least, and in fome moods, to disbelieve a God, and to be very confident of the arguments on that fide. But what then? Is the knowledge and belief of a God therefore not natural to mankind Nature itself, as constant and uniform as it is, admits of fome irregularities and exceptions, in effects that are merely natural, much more in thofe which have fomething in them that is voluntary, and depends upon the good or bad ufe of our reafon and understanding; and there is no arguing from what is monftrous, against what is natural. It is natural for men to have five fingers upon a hand, and yet fome are born otherwife but in voluntary agents, that which is natural may be perverted, and in a great meafure extinguished in fome particular inftances; fo that there is no force at all in this objection.

:

[ocr errors]

His fourth and laft argument is, that there have.

not

not only been particular perfons, but whole nations who have had no fenfe, nor fo much as fufpicion of a Deity. This I confefs were of great force, if it were true; and for the proof of this, he produceth the inftance of Brafil in America. But I utterly deny the matter of fact and history, and challenge any man to bring good teftimony, not only of any nati on, but of any city in the world, that ever were profeffed Atheists.

I know this was affirmed of fome part of Brafil, by fome of the first discoverers, who yet at the same time owned, that these very people did moft exprefly believe the immortality of the foul, and the rewards and punishments of another life; opinions which no man can, well reconcile with the denial and disbelief of a Deity. But to put an end to this argument, later and more perfect difcoveries have found this not to be true, and do affure us upon better acquaintance with thofe barbarous people, that they are deeply poffeffed with the belief of one fupreme God, who made and governs the world.

Having thus given a particular anfwer to Socinushis arguments against the natural knowledge of a God, I will now briefly offer fome arguments for it. And to prove that the knowledge and belief of a God is natural to mankind, my

First argument fhall be from the univerfal confent, in this matter, of all nations in all ages. And this is an argument of great force, there being no better way to prove any thing to be natural to any kind of being, than if it be generally found in the whole kind. Omnium confenfus natura vox eft, "the "confent of all is the voice of nature, faith Tully." And indeed by what other argument can we prove that reason, and speech, and an inclination to fociety are natural to men; but that these belong to the whole kind

Secondly, Unless the knowledge of God' and' his effential perfections be natural, I do not fee what fufficient and certain foundation there can be of revealed religion. For unless we naturally know God to be a being of all perfection, and confequently Hh3

that

« AnteriorContinuar »