St. John, xiv. 8.
Philip saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Our Lord, being now about to depart out of the world[37], prepares his disciples for this unwelcome event by many consolations and instructions. He acquaints them, more particularly than he had hitherto done, with his own personal dignity. He tells them, that, as they believed in God, they were also to believe in him[38]; and that, although he should shortly leave them, it was only to remove from Earth to Heaven, to his Father’s house, where he should more than ever be mindful of their concerns, and whither I go, says he, to prepare a place for you[39]. And, to impress this belief (so necessary for their future support under his own, and their approaching sufferings) the more strongly upon them, He declares, in the most authoritative manner, that he, only, was the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and that no man could come to the Father, but by him[40]. Nay, to shew them how great his interest was, and how close his union, with the Father, he even adds, If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth, continues he, ye know him, and have seen him[41].
This last declaration seemed so strange to his disciples, who had no notion of seeing the Father in our Lord’s suffering state, or indeed through any other medium, than that of those triumphant honours, which their carnal expectations had destined to him, that one of them, the Apostle Philip, saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. As if he had said, “We know thee be a person of great holiness, and have seen many wonderful things done by thee; so that we cannot doubt but that thou art a prophet sent from God, for some great end and purpose of his providence. But if thy pretensions go so far as to require us to believe in Thee, as in the Father; if we are to conceive of Thee, as the only Life of the world; of so great authority with God, as to procure mansions in heaven for thy disciples; nay, of so great dignity in thine own person, as to challenge the closest union and communication with the eternal Father; if, indeed, we are to believe such great things of thee, it is but reasonable, as thou sayest; that, in knowing and seeing thee, we also know and see the Father; that we have the clearest and most unquestioned proofs of thy divinity. Shew us, then, the Father; make us see the glorious symbols of his presence; present us with such irresistible demonstrations of his power and greatness, as were vouchsafed to our Fathers, at the giving of the Law; such, as strike conviction on the senses, and overrule all doubt and distrust in so high a matter; shew us, I say, the Father, in this sense, and it sufficeth to our persuasion and firm belief in thee.”
We see, in this conduct of the Apostle Philip, a natural picture of those inquirers into the truth of our religion; who, because they have not the highest possible evidence given them of it, (at least, not that evidence, which they account the highest) are tempted, if not absolutely to reject the faith, yet to entertain it with a great mixture of doubt and suspicion. “If Christianity, say they, were what it pretends to be, the arguments for it would be so decisive, that nothing could be opposed to them; if it were, indeed, of God, the proofs of its claim had been such and so many, that no scepticism could have taken place, no infidelity, at least, could have kept its ground, against the force of them.”
When this wild fancy comes to take possession of men’s minds, the whole tenour of God’s dispensations is quarrelled with, and disputed: every circumstance in our Lord’s history looks suspicious: and every fact, applied to the confirmation of our holy faith, rises into a presumption against it.
The word of Prophecy has not been so clear and manifest, as it might have been: therefore, the proofs taken from it are of no validity. The miracles of Christ were not so public or so illustrious as might be conceived: therefore, they are no evidence of his divine mission. The scene of his birth and actions might have been more conspicuous: therefore, the light of the world could not proceed from that quarter. The Gospel itself was not delivered in that manner, nor by those instruments, which they esteem most fit; its success in the world has not been so great, nor its effects on the lives of men, so salutary, as might have been expected: therefore, it could not be of divine original.
But there is no end of enumerating the instances of this folly. Let me observe, in one word, that the greater part of the objections, which weak or libertine men have opposed to the authority of revealed Religion, are of the same sort with the demand in the text. The authors of them first imagine to themselves, what evidence would be the most convincing; and then refuse their assent to any other. Their constant language is that of the Apostle Philip—shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Now, to see how little force there is in this sort of argumentation, let it be considered, that such high demands of evidence for the truth of the Christian revelation, are IMPERTINENT, at the best; that they are, most probably, on the part of the revealer, IMPROPER to be complied with; that they must be, on the part of man, PRESUMPTUOUS, and unwarrantable.
I. All demands of this sort are clearly impertinent, and beside the purpose of a fair inquirer into the authority of a divine Religion. For the question is, whether such religion be not accompanied with that evidence, which is sufficient to determine the assent of a reasonable man; not, whether it be the highest in its kind, or in its degree, which might be imagined. There is an infinite variety, and, as we may say, gradation in the scale of moral evidence, from the highest forms of demonstration down to the lowest inducements of probability. The impatient mind of man, which loves to rest in assurance, may demand the former of these in every case: but the just and sober inquirer, whatever he may wish for, will submit to the latter. He takes the argument, as presented to him; he weighs the moment of it; and if, on the whole, it preponderates, though but by some scruples of probability, against the inductions on the other side, he is determined by this evidence, with as good reason, though not with as much assurance, as by demonstration itself. His business, he knows, is to examine whether the conclusion be justly drawn, not whether it be irresistibly forced upon him. It is enough, if the proof be such as merits his assent, though it should not compel it.
Apply, now, this universal rule of just reasoning to the case of the Gospel. Consider it on the footing of that evidence, which it pretends to offer. If this evidence be weak and inconclusive in itself, let it be rejected. But, if it be sufficient to the purpose for which it is given, why look out for any higher? The pretensions of Christianity are, indeed, very great. It claims to be received by us, as the work and word of God. The proofs of its being such should, no doubt, be adapted to the nature of these pretensions. If, in fact, they be so adapted, all further attestations of its truth, all stronger demonstrations of its divinity (supposing there might be stronger) are, at least, unnecessary: our demands of them are without ground, and without reason: that is, they are clearly not to the purpose of this inquiry. But
II. The impertinence of these demands, is not all. There is good reason to believe, that they are, in themselves, absolutely unfit and IMPROPER to be complied with.
In saying this, I do not only mean that the evidence, such men call for, is so far mistaken as to be really of an inferior sort, and less convincing to a well-informed mind, than that which they reject. This, no doubt, is very frequently the case. It has been shewn in many instances, and even to the conviction of the objector himself, that such circumstances as have been thought most suspicious, such proofs as have appeared the weakest, have upon inquiry turned out, of all others, the strongest and most satisfactory. For example, they who object to the mean instruments, by which the Christian Religion was propagated, are confuted by the Apostle Paul himself; who has shewn that very circumstance to be the clearest proof of its divinity; this method of publishing the Gospel having been purposely chosen, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God[42]. And the same answer will equally serve to many other pretences of the like nature.
But, as I said, my intention is not, at present, to expose the common mistake of preferring a weaker evidence to a stronger. Let it be allowed, that the evidence required is, in fact, the stronger. Still there is reason to think that such evidence was not proper to be given. And I argue, from the nature of the thing; and from the genius of the Gospel.
1. In the nature of the thing it seems not reasonable that a divine revelation should be obtruded upon men by the highest possible evidence. This would be to constrain their assent, not to obtain it: and the very essence of religion consists in its being a willing, as well as reasonable service.
Or, take the matter thus. On supposition that it should please God to address himself to man, it is to be presumed he would treat him as man; that is, in a way, which is suitable to the whole of his nature. But man is not only an intelligent being, that is, capable of discerning the force of evidence, and of being determined by it: he is, also, a moral being, that is, capable of making a right or wrong use of his liberty. Now put the case of an overpowering, irresistible evidence, and his understanding is convinced, indeed; but the will, that other and better half of his composition, the spring of liberty and of virtue, this, with all the energies depending upon it, is untouched, and has no share in the operation. On the other hand, let the evidence submitted to him be such only as may satisfy his reason, if attentively, if modestly, if virtuously employed, and you see the whole man in play: his intellectual powers are considered, and his moral faculties, the faculties of a wise and understanding heart, applied to and exerted.
It seems, then, that, if a Revelation were given to man, it would most probably, and according to the best views we can form of the divine conduct, be given in this way; that is, in such a way, as should make it, at once, the proper object of his faith, and the test, I had almost said the reward, of his merit.
And such, we may observe, is the sense of mankind in other instances of God’s government. Who complains, that the ordinary blessings of Heaven, the conveniences and accommodations of life, are not ready furnished and prepared to his hands? Who does not think it sufficient, to our use and to God’s glory, that we have the powers requisite to prepare them? Why then expect this greatest of God’s blessings, a divine Revelation, to be made cheap in being forced upon us, whether we will or no, by an evidence, which silences reason, rather than employs it; and precludes the exercise of the noblest faculties, with which our nature is invested?
2. Thus, the reason of the thing affords a presumption (I mean, if men will reason at all on such matters), that these high demands in religion are unfit to be complied with. But we shall argue more safely, in the next place, from the genius and declarations of the Gospel.
From the tenour of the Gospel-revelation we learn, that, though a reasonable evidence be afforded of its truth, yet the author and publishers of it were by no means solicitous to force it on the minds of men by an unnecessary and irresistible evidence.
We see this in the conduct of our Lord himself, who refused to gratify the curiosity both of friends and foes by needless explanations[43], or supernumerary miracles[44]. We see it, further, in his general method of speaking by Parables[45]; which are so contrived as to instruct the attentive and willing hearer, but not the prejudiced or indifferent. Nay, when some of his parables were so obscure as that they might seem to require an explanation, he did not always vouchsafe to give it before the people, but reserved the exposition of them for his disciples, in private[46]. To them, only, it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: others, were left to their own interpretation of his Parables[47].
This proceeding of Christ plainly shews that he was not anxious to instruct or convince in that way, which might appear the most direct and cogent. It seems, on the contrary, to have been his choice to afford the strongest proofs of his mission and the clearest views of his doctrine to those, not whose incredulity needed his assistance most, but who, by their good dispositions and moral qualities, deserved it[48]. He thought not fit to cast pearls before swine[49]; and, as contrary as it may be to our forward expectations, it was a rule with him, that he that hath, to him it should be given[50].
That this was the genius of the Gospel, we further learn from the stress, which is laid on Faith. It is everywhere demanded as a previous qualification in the aspirants to this religion; it is everywhere spoken of as the highest moral virtue: a representation, strange and impossible to be accounted for, if men were to be borne down by the weight of evidence only.
But, to put the matter out of all doubt, we have it declared to us in express words, that those converts are the most acceptable to Christ, who receive his religion, on a reasonable, indeed, but inferiour evidence. When the Apostle Thomas expressed his belief, on the evidence of sense, Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed[51].
Now, whatever occasion prophane men may take from this account of Gospel-evidence to calumniate the divine Author of our Faith, as though he relied more on the credulity, than the conviction of his followers; whatever perverse use, I say, some men may be disposed to make of this circumstance; one thing, I suppose, is clear, “That the genius of the Gospel does, in fact, discountenance their high demands of evidence.” So that, taking the Christian religion for what it is (and for such only, the rules of good reasoning oblige us to take it) it is very certain that no man is authorized to expect other or stronger proofs of its divinity than have been given. On the contrary, such proofs, as men account stronger, could only serve to weaken its evidence, and overthrow its pretensions.
III. Lastly, Though no distinct reason could have been opposed to these high expectations in religion, yet common sense would have seen, “That they are, in general, PRESUMPTUOUS AND UNWARRANTABLE.”
For what man, that thinks at all, but must acknowledge that sacred truth, that God’s ways are not as our ways[52]; and that it is the height of mortal folly to prescribe to the Almighty? What man is he that can know the council of God? Or, who can think what the will of the Lord is?—Hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon the earth, and with labour do we find the things that are before us: but the things that are in heaven who hath searched out[53]?
Such passages as these have, I know, been sometimes brought to insult and disgrace Reason, when employed the most soberly, and in her proper office. But I quote them for no such purpose. I mean not to infer from these testimonies, that we are not competent judges of the evidence which is laid before us (for why, then, was it offered?); but, that reason cannot tell us, what evidence it was fit for Heaven to give of its own councils and revelations. We may conjecture, modestly conjecture, without blame. Nay the wisest and best men, and even angels themselves, have a reasonable desire to look into these things: and their speculations, if duly governed, are, no doubt, commendable and useful. But we are not, upon this pretence, to dogmatize on such matters. Much less, may we take upon us to reject a well-attested Revelation, a Revelation, that bears many characteristic marks, many illustrious signatures and impresses of divinity, because this or that circumstance, attending it, does not accord to our narrow views and shallow surmises. In short, men would do well to remember that it is no less a maxim of reason than of Scripture, that the things of God, knoweth no man but the Spirit of God[54]: a maxim, we should never lose sight of, a moment, in our religious inquiries.
But this, though an important consideration, is a common one, and I pursue it no farther. Let it suffice to have shewn, “That when, in matters of religion, men indulge themselves in fancying what evidence would have been most convincing to them, and then erect such fancies into expectations, they are, at best, employed very idly:”
“That the worthiest apprehensions, we can frame of the divine wisdom, and both the genius and letter of the Christian religion, discountenance these expectations, as improper and unreasonable to be complied with:”
And, “that, from the slightest acquaintance with ourselves, we must needs confess them to be presumptuous.”
The USE to be made of the whole is, that men think soberly, as they ought to think[55]; and that, if ever their restless curiosity, or some worse principle, impells them to make the demand in the text, shew us the Father, they repress the rising folly by this just reflexion, that they have no right, in their sense of the word, to see the Father.
Not but his infinite goodness hath vouchsafed to unveil himself so far, as is abundantly sufficient to our conviction. But then we must be content to see him in that light, in which he has been graciously pleased to shew himself, not in that unapproachable light[56] in which our madness requires to have him shewn to us.
The evidences of Christianity are not dispensed with a penurious hand: but they lie dispersed in a very wide compass. They result from an infinite number of considerations, each of which has its weight, and all together such moment, as may be, but is not easily resisted. To collect and estimate these, much labour and patience is to be endured; great parts of learning and genius are required; above all, an upright and pure mind is demanded. If, conscious of our little worth or ability, we find ourselves not equal to this task, let us adore in silence, and with that humility which becomes us. To call out for light, when we have enough to serve our purpose, is indeed foolish: but to make this noisy demand, when we have previously blinded our eyes, or have resolved to keep them shut, is something more than folly.
After all, there is one way, in which the meanest of us may be indulged in the high privilege of SEEING the Father, at least, in the express image of his Son. It is, by keeping the commandments. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, says our Lord himself, I will love him, and will MANIFEST myself to him[57]. In other words, he will see and acknowledge the truth of our divine religion.