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.