PREFACE.

THE following Essays contain the substance of some Discourses not originally designed for the Press, but which I was strongly urged to publish by several of the persons to whom the Volume is inscribed.*

I have endeavoured to throw the materials into a form more suited for private perusal than that of the Discourses originally delivered. I fear, however, that in consequence of frequent interruptions during the preparation of the work for the Press, some defects may be found in the arrangement and comparative developement of the several topics, and other such imperfections in the compositions, which can only be effectually guarded against by means of a period of unbroken leisure beyond what I can ever reasonably expect.

But whatever may be thought of the Work as a Composition, I trust that, in respect of the matter of it, the reader will give me credit for being incapable of putting forth, on subjects so important, any views that have not been carefully considered.

In fact, among the subjects here treated of are some on which I have not only reflected much, but have written and published from time to time for above twelve years.

And it may not be impertinent here to remark, that in respect of some most important points now maintained, I may appeal (besides the arguments contained in the following pages) to the strongest of all external confirmations, the testimony of opponents. Not that I have ever written in a polemical form, or sought to provoke controversy; but by opponents, I mean those who have maintained, and who still maintain, opinions opposite to those I have put forth; but who have never, to the best of my knowledge, even attempted any refutation of the reasons I have adduced.

For instance, that the introduction into the Christian Religion of Sacrifices and Sacrificing Priests is utterly at variance with the whole System of the Gospel, and destructive of one of its most important characteristics; and, again, that the implicit deference due, to the declarations and precepts of Holy Scripture, is due to nothing else, and that it is not humble piety, but profane presumption, either to attribute infallibility to the traditions or decision of any uninspired Man or Body of men, (whether Church, Council, Fathers, or by whatever other title designated,) or, still more, to acknowledge in these, although fallible, a right to fix absolutely the interpretation of Scripture, to be blended therewith, and to supersede all private judgment, these are positions which I have put forth, from time to time, for many years past, in various forms of expression, and supported by a variety of arguments, in several different works, some of which have appeared in more than one edition. And though opposite views are maintained by many writers of the present day, several of them professed members of the Church of England, I have never seen even an attempted refutation of any of those arguments.

It cannot be alleged that they are not worth noticing: since whether intrinsically weak or strong, the reception they have met with from the Public indicates their having had some influence.

And again, if any one is averse to entering into controversy, and especially personal controversy, (a feeling with which I cordially sympathize,) this would not compel him to leave wholly unnoticed all the arguments that can be urged against his views. It would be absurd to speak as if there were no medium between, on the one hand, engaging in a controversy, and, on the other hand, passing over with

* In the earlier part of the first Essay, I have been much indebted to a valuable Work which, for several years, I have been in the habit of recommending to divinity students,- "Wilson on the Interpretation of the New Testament," [published by Parker, West Strand.] In the first edition this notice, though referred to in a foot note to § 6, (as if inserted,) was accidentally omitted in this place.

out any notice at all, every thing that ever has been, or may be, urged on the opposite side. Nothing is easier or more common, and I should add, nothing more advisable, than to notice in general terms the opinions or arguments opposed to one's own, and without reference to any particular book or author: as by saying, for instance, "Such and such a doctrine has been held;"" this or that may be alleged ;"-"some persons may object so and so," &c. In this way, not only personal controversy may be avoided, without undue neglect of what may be said on the opposite side, but also the advantage is gained (to the cause of truth, I mean) of confining the reader's attention to the real merits of the case, independently of the extraneous circumstances,* which ought not to influence the decision.

It is true, no one should be required to notice every minor objection, every difficulty relative to points of detail,-that may be alleged against any principle or system he is contending for; since there may be even valid objections against each of two opposite conclusions. But this does not affect the present case; the arguments I am alluding to having relation to fundamental principles. Whatever any one may think of the soundness of those arguments, no one can doubt that, if admitted, they go to prove that the system contended against is (not merely open to objections, but) radically wrong throughout; based on false assumptions, supported by none but utterly fallacious reasoning, and leading to the most pernicious consequences.

And these arguments, though it is not for me to say that they are unanswerable have certainly been hitherto, as far as I know, wholly unanswered, even by those who continue to advocate opposite conclusions.

Should it be asked why they do not either abandon those conclusions, or else attempt a refutation of the reasons urged against them, that is evidently not a question for me, but for them, to answer. Else, an answer is not unlikely to occur to some minds, in the words of the homely proverb, "he that's convinced against his will, is of his own opinion still."

It is only, however, in reference to the subject-matter itself of the question under discussion to the intrinsic soundness of the conclusions advocated-that the opinions and procedure of individuals can be worth the attention of the general reader. All that I wish to invite notice to is, the confirmation that is afforded to the conclusiveness of arguments to which no answer is attempted, even by those who continue to maintain doctrines at variance with them.

All that has been said in reference to the positions above alluded to (which are among those maintained in the second of these Essays) will apply equally to some of those maintained in the first Essay: for instance, that to attempt the propagation or support of Gospel truth by secular force, or by establishing in behalf of Christians, as such, a monopoly of civil rights, is utterly at variance with the true character of Christ's Kingdom, and with the teaching and practice of Himself and his Apostles; and that to attribute to them any such design, is to impugn their character, not merely as inspired Messengers from Heaven, but even as sincere and upright men.

These conclusions have been maintained by arguments which have been as long before the Public § as the others above alluded to, and have remained equally unanswered.

If in these, or in any other points, I am in error, I trust I shall be found open to conviction whenever my errors shall be pointed out. In the mean time, I trust I shall not be thought to have been unprofitably employed, in endeavouring more fully to elucidate, and to confirm by additional arguments, what appear to me to be momentous truths, and in developing some of the most important of the practical conclusions which result from them.

In the present edition a few notes have been added in further illustration of the principles maintained; and here and there a sentence has been slightly altered in expression, in order to guard, as far as lies in myself, against all danger of misapprehension.

*

* Εξω του πράγματος, Arist. Rhet.

† See Logic, b. iii. § 17.

See a very interesting pamphlet on the present condition of the Vaudois. (Murray, Albemarle Street.)

§ Particularly in the Essay "On Persecution," (Third Series,) and in Appendix E. and F. to the Essays "On the Dangers," &c., (Fourth Series.)

ESSAY I.

ON CHRIST'S OWN ACCOUNT OF HIS PERSON, AND ON THE NATURE OF HIS KINGDOM, AS SET FORTH AT HIS TWO TRIALS.

Οὐδὲ εὑρέθη ΔΟΛΟΣ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ.

but not the power, to inflict capital punishment on Him; Pilate had the power, and not the will. But though he "found no fault in Him," he was ultimately prevailed on by the Jews to inflict their sentence of death. "We have a law," they urged, "and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."

§ 1. To any one who is convinced of pretensions subversive of the existing the divine origin of the Christian Re- Government; and was pronounced not ligion, who is satisfied that what is called guilty. The Jewish rulers had the will, in Scripture "the Kingdom of Heaven" does really deserve that title, and who is inquiring into the personal character of its Founder, and into the nature of that Kingdom which He proclaimed and established, the most obvious and natural course would seem to be, to appeal, in the first instance, to that Founder himself, and to consider what account He gave of his own character and that of his kingdom. For to believe Him sent from God, is to believe Him incapable of either deceiving or being deceived, as to these points. He must have understood both his own personal nature, and the principles of the religion He was divinely commissioned to introduce. Having a full reliance therefore both on his unerring knowledge, and his perfect veracity, our first inquiry should be, as I have said, (without any disparagement of other sources of instruction,) into the accounts He gave of Himself and his religion; both in the various discourses which He delivered and declarations which He made, on sundry occasions, and, most especially, on the great and final occasion of his being tried and condemned to death.

Of this most interesting and important portion of the sacred narrative, many persons, I believe, have a somewhat indistinct and confused notion; partly from the brevity, scantiness, and indeed incompleteness, of each of the four narratives, when taken alone; each evangelist recording, it may be supposed, such circumstances, as he was the most struck with, and had seen or heard the most of: and partly, again, from the commonly prevailing practice of reading the Scripture-histories irregularly, and in detached fragments, taken indiscriminately and without any fixed object, out of different books.†

This indistinctness a reader of ordinary intelligence may I think very easily clear away, by attentively studying and comparing together all the four accounts that have come down to us: and he will then find that this portion of the history so examined, will throw great light on some of the most important points of Gospel truth;-on those two great questions

*

We collect from the sacred historians that He underwent two trials, before two distinct tribunals, and on charges totally different; that on the one occasion He was found guilty, and on the other, acquitted; and that ultimately He was put to death under the one Authority in comHus is expressed in the original. pliance with the condemnation which †The whole of the New Testament is read in had been pronounced by the other. this irregular mode, in the Second Lessons apHe was tried first before the Sanhe-pointed in our service; as these are appointed in drim, (the Jewish Council,) "for blas-reference to the day of the month only; and it is phemy," and pronounced "guilty of consequently a matter of chance which of them death." Before the Roman governor, Pilate, (and probably before Herod also,) He was tried for rebellion, in setting up

fections which a Church-government, if we had shall fall on Sunday. This is one of the imperone, would not fail to remedy. See Appendix to the Second Essay

especially which were alluded to in the outset, as to the fundamental character of "the kingdom of Heaven," and the person of its Founder.

cial manner,-in a higher sense, those are often called his children whom He has from time to time chosen to be his " peculiar People,"to have his will revealed to them, and his offers of especial favour set before them. Such were the Israelites of old (to whom the title of Son is accordingly assigned by the Lord himself, Exod. iv. 22,) as being the chosen or

all the nations of the world to receive direct communications, and especial blessings from their Heavenly Father. And the like privilege of peculiar "Sonship," (only in a far higher degree,) was extended afterwards to all nations who should embrace the Gospel; "who aforetime" (says

§ 2. When the Jewish Rulers and People were clamorously demanding the death of Jesus under sentence of the Roman Authorities, and Pilate in answer declared, that before his-the Romantribunal, no crime had been proved, say-"elect" people of God, called from among ing, "Take ye Him and judge Him according to your law," his intention evidently was that no heavier penalty should be inflicted than the scourging which was the utmost that the Jewish Authorities were permitted to inflict. But they replied that the crime of which they had convicted Him was, by their law, capital, while the Apostle Peter) "were not a People, yet they were restricted by the Romans from inflicting capital punishment; ("it is not lawful for us to put any man to death;") on which ground accordingly they called on the Governor to execute the capital sentence of their Court.

Their clamours prevailed, through Pilate's apprehension of a tumult, and of himself incurring suspicions of disloyalty towards the Emperor; which they had endeavoured to awaken by crying out that "if he let this man go, he was not Cæsar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar." But this was only brought forward as a plea to influence Pilate. The trial before the Jewish Council had nothing to do with the Roman Emperor, but was for "blasphemy," because "He made Himself the SON OF GOD."

It is important, therefore, to inquire,since this phrase may conceivably bear more than one meaning,-in what sense it was understood by those who founded on it the sentence of death.

In a certain sense all mankind may be called children of God. In a more espe

* It seems to have been not unusual for the Ro

man Governors of Provinces to endeavour thus to

prevent, or mitigate, or cut short, any tumult not directed against the Roman power itself, by yielding to the wishes of the populace, however unreasonable, or conniving at their disorders. A sort of compromise was thus made with the most turbulent and violent among them; who, provided they made no attempt to throw off the yoke of a foreign Power, were permitted to sacrifice a fellow citizen to their lawless fury. Thus Gallio at Corinth left the rioters to settle their own disputes as they would; (Acts xviii. ;) and the magistrates at Philippi readily and spontaneously gratified the populace by seconding and sanctioning their unjust violence. Pilate on this occasion did so, tardily and reluctantly.

† (Acts xvii.). . " for we are also his children."

but now are the People of God." And Paul uses like expressions continually in addressing his converts, whether they walked worthy of their high calling or not.

Yet again, still more especially, those who do avail themselves of the privileges offered to them, and "walk as Children of the light," are spoken of as, in another and a superior way, the "Sons" of Him whom they love and submit to as a Father: "as many," says Paul, "as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God."

Those Patriarchs, and Prophets again, to whom of old God revealed Himself immediately, and made them the means of communication between Himself and other men,-his messengers to his People,-and endowed with miraculous powers as the credentials of a heavenly embassy, to such men as having a peculiar kind of divine presence with them, we might conceive the title, of Children of God to be applicable in a different sense, as distinguishing them from uninspired men.

Now it is a most important practical Finisher of our faith,-He to whom we question whether Jesus, the Author and are accustomed emphatically to apply the title of the Son of God,"-was so designated, in the Angel's first announcement, and on so many occasions afterwards, merely as being an inspired messenger from heaven, or in some different and higher sense; and what that higher sense is.

§ 3. And first, that Jesus is spoken of in Scripture as the Son of God, in some different sense from any other person, is evident at once from the very circumstance of his being styled "the only begotten Son;" which title is particularly