As I have already made an appeal to the inspired writers of the New Testament, I shall not reiterate their testimony; though, as it is so very copious, it would be no difficult matter to produce new and additional evidence to authenticate the great doctrines which I have undertaken to defend. Suffice it to observe, that if revelation had been confined to the contents of the 6th, 10th, and 17th of St. John’s gospel; from those three chapters alone we might collect materials sufficient for laying the foundation, and rearing the superstructure, of the temple of truth. In that small portion of sacred scripture you have the whole gospel epitomized; and that, not by the opinion of an apostle, but by the infallible authority of that great Prophet, “who spake as never man spake,” and from whose judgment there can lie no appeal.
It would be a task far from difficult to collect the opinion of the primitive Fathers on these subjects, and to point out their coincidence with the doctrines of the established church. Those of them that flourished nearest to the days of the apostles, such as Tertullian, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, &c. and those venerable ecclesiastics that presided at the council of Nice in Bithynia, and united, at the instance of Constantine the Great, in condemning the heresy of Arius; or the not less respectable names of Augustin and Hierom, who so ably defended the truth against the subtleties and errors of Pelagius;—are authorities in our favor, not only venerable for their antiquity, but, what is more valuable, for the purity and consistency of those systems, in which they guard the truth and combat error, even when abetted by such heræsiarchs as Arius and Pelagius; the former at the head of those, who blaspheme the Deity of the Son of God; and the latter, of those that deny the fall. But, to come nearer home. In the reign of James I. several of our English bishops were sent over by that monarch to the synod of Dort, which was convened for the purpose of examining and condemning the tenets of Arminius. Among these the names of Bishop Hall, and Davenant, shine with distinguished lustre. In the reigns of Edward the VIth, and Queen Elizabeth, the doctrines contained in the 39 articles, and the two books of homilies, received the sanction of both houses of parliament; and the former were compiled expressly for the purpose of “avoiding diversity of opinions.” The doctrines contained in them receive no small recommendation from such excellent reformers as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper; men that sealed the truth with their blood. Let any man of common honesty and candor but read over the homilies and articles, and then say, whether they do not avow, as consonant to the sacred scriptures, those tenets, which, by many, and even by persons that have subscribed them, are, in the present day, branded with terms the most opprobrious. I appeal to the common sense of any man, whether the 1st Article does not expressly and unequivocally receive the doctrine of the Trinity—the 2d, the divinity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father—the 9th, the doctrine of original sin—the 10th, the inability of the human will without the prevenient operation of the grace of Christ—the 11th, the nature of justification, not by works, but by the merits of Christ—the 13th, the inefficacy, and even sinfulness, of works antecedent to “the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit”—whether the 15th does not disavow the notion of impeccability in this life—and whether the 17th does not as expressly, but more copiously, and, if possible, more unambiguously, state the doctrine of election.
A solemn subscription, and as unequivocal as solemn, to these doctrines, is required of every man that commences a minister in the establishment. As long as we preach these doctrines, we act consistently with the sincere attachment which we promised to her interests. And will any person be bold enough to assert that these doctrines are new? when they manifestly claim, at least, the æra of the reformation as a sanction for their antiquity? Whether they be true or false, is not the question immediately under consideration. That has been discussed already. But are they new? Or, are they not the discriminating doctrines of the Church of England? If they are not, how came a number of the clergy a few years ago to associate at a tavern, and there to project a petition to parliament for easing their consciences from the burden of subscribing them? And why do their brethren among Arians and Socinians at this time so bitterly regret the existence of these doctrines amongst us? I grant that to two sorts of people they may appear new; either to those, who never heard them before, or to such as “are lost” to all the light and power of truth, “in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” 2 Cor. iv. 4. Or they may be reputed so, by those who never took the trouble to read the articles of their own church. And it is not a little remarkable, that they are most forward to bring this charge, who are the most incompetent judges of the matter.
In order to do the work of Satan, and prejudice people’s minds against the truth, it has been the industrious contrivance of some to call certain systems by some obnoxious epithet of novelty, enthusiasm, or fanaticism. Whether these words have some meaning, or none at all, is never inquired by the vulgar. Nor does it appear to be ever the wish of those who use them, to give any explanation of them. If they can only frighten men from the truth, and the preachers of it, by the bugbear of some obnoxious appellation; they are satisfied, and so is the devil too. But the application of hackneyed epithets, we esteem the effect of ignorance, want of politeness and candor, and often the refuge of enmity against the gospel; which, when disarmed of arguments, and stript of every plea for its unreasonable opposition, at last flies to the scorner’s chair to call names, and vent the poison of asps in calumniating and traducing, when it can do nothing more. But “none of these things move us; neither count we our lives dear unto us, so that we might finish our course with joy; and the ministry, which we have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” Acts, xx. 24.
We beg, however, brethren, it may be remembered, that the application of any name, by which the laborious and faithful ministers of Christ are distinguished from those who live in indolence and luxurious ease, we esteem an honor; because we recollect, that even the blessed Jesus himself, who “went about doing good,” was nevertheless stigmatized with names of the most diabolical import, and his apostles branded as men “that turned the world upside down.” But, any epithet that conveys the most distant idea of propagating doctrines repugnant to those, which our reformers have given us in the articles, homilies, and liturgy of our church; or any name that implies any infringement on the constitution or discipline of our most excellent establishment, we totally disavow; and I must be excused, if I add, that to call men, who are so warmly attached to the interests of the Church of England, by names that imply the contrary, is both unjust and invidious. Although we honor many, who happen not to be within the pale of the establishment, and love all, who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, by whatever denomination they may be distinguished, (for, difference in non-essentials ought to be no bar to Christian Catholicism among the common friends of truth,) yet we profess to be of no party, and to call no man master upon earth, but the great Prophet and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus the Lord. The very summit of our ambition is to acquit ourselves as faithful embassadors of the Prince of Peace, and to see the interests of the everlasting gospel crowned with prosperity, in the conversion of sinners. Compared with this great end of our function, the consideration of worldly emoluments, or human applause, is lighter than vanity itself: for, to an enlightened minister of Christ, the salvation of immortal souls from sin and hell, is an event of infinitely greater moment than the temporal salvation of kingdoms and empires. To this great event he wishes to direct all his studies, prayers, and exhortations; and rejoices to spend and be spent, if haply he may be instrumental in saving one sinner from the damnation of hell. If, in the delivery of his message, any thing should seem new, as to matter or manner, the novelty is rather eventual than real. When the cause of God, and the interests of souls, are under consideration, who can help being in earnest? The highest degree of pathos, which sentiment, expression, and gesture united, can arrive at, will always fall far below the dignity of our subject, and the solemnity of our charge, when called to address an assembly of dying mortals, and to declare to them the whole counsel of God. However, without controverting the objections made to a particular manner of conveying gospel truths, we do insist that the matter is agreeable to the system we solemnly subscribed at our ordination; and we defy any man living to prove, that the doctrines I have this day delivered, are new; unless the charge of novelty can be brought against the doctrines of the reformation. Examine them, brethren, with care and coolness of temper. Compare them with the scriptures, first; and then read over the 39 articles. If you love truth, you will do the first. If you love the Church of England, you will do the last. And if you have any pretension to candor of inquiry, or solicitude about your everlasting interests, you will not desist; till you have found an answer to Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”
“Consider what I say; and the Lord give you understanding in all things!” 2 Tim. ii. 7.
SERMON II.
THE NATURE AND NECESSITY OF GIVING THE HEART TO GOD, CONSIDERED AND ENFORCED.
[Preached at Nantwich, July 1, 1781.]
“My son, give me thine heart.” Prov. xxiii. 26.