DISCOURSE XV.

ACTS, CHAP. XV.-VERSES 1, 2.

And certain men, which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders, about this question.

WE learn from the text, and other parts of holy writ, that the earliest and purest times of the gospel were not free from disputes and controversies in religion: that the authority of the Apostles, though confirmed by signs and wonders, was not sufficient to lay the heats and prejudices of men; which, like ancient inhabitants, having possession and prescription to plead for their right, were with great difficulty removed: that the Apostles themselves, however agreed in one and the same doctrine, were of different opinions as to the prudential methods of dealing with the opposition they found; some giving way to the torrent, that men might have time to cool, and recover the calmness of reason and judgment; others endeavoring resolutely to stem the tide, and not to give way, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue.' Hence arose the contest between Peter and Paul: so that, as the Apostle of the Gentiles himself tells us, he withstood Peter to the face.'

6

To the same cause likewise we may ascribe much of the present difficulty and obscurity of the books of the New Testament for the writers being necessarily drawn into controversy

by this means, which always has, and in the nature of the thing must have, reference to the opinions and prejudices of the disputers; there are many things in Scripture which appear dark to us, for want of a distinct knowlege of the errors and misconceits which the writers oppose; many things delivered down to us, in which it is not easy at first sight to distinguish how far the holy Penman argues on the truth of our common Christianity, and how far on the principles and concessions of his adversary. From whence it has come to pass that some things have been taught by unskilful interpreters of Scripture, as the doctrines of Christianity, which were no better than the errors of judaizing converts.

These difficulties, thus woven into the holy writings, have furnished even to learned men constant matter of dispute and controversy; and some points have labored under a difference of opinion in most ages of the church and so far has length of time been from diminishing these disputes, that every writer of name and authority has enlarged this field of controversy; and to examine, adjust, and expound the sentiments and opinions of men of renown in the church of God, who have gone before us, is left as an additional labor and study, and oftentimes as a fresh matter of contention.

Add to these causes already recited, the passions, the weaknesses, and prepossessions of mind, which the best of men are not free from; and which darken and obscure things in themselves oftentimes clear and intelligible; and you will have before you, perhaps, a just account of the causes which have filled the world with so many doubts and differences in opinion concerning the weightiest matters of religion.

But since from this account there appears little hope of coming to an intire harmony and agreement of opinion, what must an honest man do? Whom shall he choose to follow? And, when he has chosen, with what security and confidence can he proceed? since there will be always some to tell him that he is a blind follower of a blind leader. How far this difficulty has been pressed, even to the rendering all religion precarious and uncertain, and to the discarding the gospel itself, which is represented as encumbered with so many doubts, such different comments and expositions, that the wit of man knows not how

to extricate him from this labyrinth, and lead him to one spot of firm ground whereon to rest the sole of his feet; how far, I say, this argument has been urged to this purpose, I need not say it will be more to our purpose to call this matter to a fair examination, and to assert the grounds and principles of our faith, notwithstanding this fierce assault that has been made on them.

Now there are two things which this argument leads us to consider; and which, when fairly stated, will, I think, exhaust the whole difficulty.

The first is with respect to the revelation itself; to consider how far these difficulties affect the authority of the gospel for if it is, as it is represented, so very dark and obscure, that common honesty, with the assistance of common sense, cannot discern in it what is the will of God; then it cannot be a rule or measure of religion, or designed as such by God, who is too wise and too good to give laws to the world, which can be of no use to them, but to perplex and confound their understandings.

The second is with respect to ourselves; to consider how we may attain to a certain rule of religion under the gospel revelation, notwithstanding the many controversies and disputes, which are too visible to be denied, and oftentimes too fierce to be excused.

And if it shall appear on the whole, that these difficulties do not affect the authority of the gospel, nor preclude us from the certain knowlege of the faith and obedience required under the gospel; then, whatever use may be made of these controversies, they cannot in reason be urged as objections against revealed religion, the certainty of which, either as to its authority or the clearness of its doctrines, is no way impeached by

them.

The first thing is, to consider the authority of revelation, and how it is affected by any difficulties or obscurities that are found in it.

The authority of revelation depends on this, that it is the will and word of God; and he that knows he has the word of God, knows that he has a revelation of certain authority. The first question then is, whether this knowlege may be attained,

before we have a distinct and explicit understanding of all the parts of the revelation? If it may, then it is certain that the obscurity of some parts of the revelation cannot destroy the authority of the whole. We know very well, in all ordinary cases, that these are two very distinct acts of knowlege, and not in the least dependent on one another, to know who spoke such words, and to know the true sense and import of those words. One man may certainly know who spoke them, though he knows not the meaning of them: another may know the meaning of them, without knowing who spoke them. In revelation the case is the same: our Saviour spoke many things in parables, which the disciples understood not, and which he afterwards explained to them. Now I would ask any man whether the disciples did not as certainly know that those parables were the word of Christ, before he explained them, as they did afterwards? If they did, those parables were to them of the same authority, though not of the same use, when they were obscure, as when they were explained. In human laws the case is the same: the authority of them depends not on their being distinctly understood by all men; for the man who has no ability to expound a statute, may yet be certain of its authority, if he will have recourse to the proper records. And there are many statutes of this realm, the authority of which no man doubts of, though at the same time those who are best able to judge are not agreed in the meaning and exposition of them and what would you think of a man who should affirm that we have no statute-book in this kingdom, or none of any authority; and give you this reason for it, because that which we call our statute-book has many difficulties and obscurities in it, many things which are not to be reduced to a certain and determinate meaning? And yet the argument is as good, nay, just the same, in this case, as when it is applied to revelation; and a man argues with the same shrewdwho tells us we have no gospel, or none that we ought to admit, because the gospel we pretend to has many difficult passages in it, many things that are hard to be understood: for the obscurity of some laws is as good an argument against the authority of the statute-book, as the obscurity of some texts is against the authority of the gospel.

ness,

per

This will farther appear to be true, if we consider the proper proofs of a revelation, and how they operate: for they will be found to take place, and have their full effect on the mind, antecedently to our having a distinct understanding of all the parts of a revelation: and consequently our not having a distinct understanding of all the parts of a revelation is no objection to the authority of a revelation, which is founded on proofs the objection cannot reach. Now these proofs are three: the qualities of the person who is sent to make the revelation: the main end and purpose of his coming: and the miracles which he gives in evidence of his commission. If the son be sufficiently qualified to be intrusted with so great a charge; if nothing appears to make it justly suspected that he is a deceiver; if no private views, no self-interest, no ambition are discoverable; if he be in all respects such an one as we may reasonably suppose God would make choice of to send on his errand if the end and design of his coming is such as we may well God to be the author of; if it tends to prosuppose mote the honor of God and true religion, to secure the general happiness and welfare of mankind, without any partial views and regards if his mission be attested by such signs and wonders as plainly point out to us the hand of God supporting and encouraging the work; if they are openly shown before friends and foes, and attended with such other circumstances as are necessary to place them above suspicion in this case we have a certain evidence of the mission and authority of this person to make known to us the will of God, and are bound to receive what he shall publish in God's name as the law of God. Now all these proofs we certainly may have, without being able to understand or fully comprehend all that such a person delivers; and yet, in force of these proofs, we are bound to believe what he delivers to be the word of God. Men do not speak accurately when they say the doctrines are proved by miracles; for in truth there is no connexion between any miracles and doctrines; miracles prove the authority of the person, and the authority of the person is the ground of receiving the doctrine. Now it is one thing to know the authority of the person, another thing to know what he says. His authority makes what he says to be law, and your want of

: