Another temptation is a kind of false shame, which often, in young people especially, prevails over the fear of God and the sense of religion. When they find what honor is often paid to unbelievers, while religion is scoffed at as ignorance and superstition, they grow ashamed of their profession, and by degrees are hardened so far as to deny their God; and encouraged by example and precept, to brave his vengeance.

These are the most common temptations that betray men to those instructors which cause to err from the words of knowlege. How it concerns us to guard against them, will appear when we consider, Secondly, The danger there is in listening to them.

And here those only are addressed who have not yet made shipwreck of their reason and conscience; for though the hardened unbelievers are in greatest danger, yet they are farthest removed from the power of conviction. It is unpardonable folly and perverseness for men to forsake religion out of vanity, as if irreligion were a mark of honor and distinction. To fear where there is just cause of fear, where our souls and eternal happiness are at stake, is not below the dignity of a man. To outbrave God and his justice is a sad instance of courage. We must answer for the vanity of our reasoning as well as for the vanity of our pleasures: if we take pains to invent reasoning to oppose the plain evidences which God has given us of his being and power, we shall not go unpunished: if we debase reason, which was given us for a guide, and force it to submit to our unruly appetites, much more shall we be liable to the vengeance of Heaven.

How far men of irreligious lives and principles are chargeable with these abuses they can best inform themselves: and surely the hopes of immortality and fears of hell should drive them to ask the question. If there really be a future state of retribution, both the punishments and the rewards must be very inconsiderable indeed not to make it worth a man's while to live up to the conditions of being happy. Allowing the punishment less than it really will be, still it must in all cases exceed the advantage gained by transgressing the law; or else there would be encouragement for men to offend: therefore we may be sure that God, who is the wisest of lawgivers, has taken such care to guard his laws and statutes, that there shall be no encouragement to offenders: so that all sinners must be guilty of folly in choosing the sin with the punishment, when this must of necessity exceed the advantage of sinning.

These are the easiest terms that sinners can flatter themselves with; and yet, even on this view, the pleasures of sin will prove a dear bargain. But should the punishments of another life be what we have reason to fear they will be, words cannot express the folly of sin. Short are our days in this world; and should religion prove a deceit, we know the worst of it: it is an error for which we cannot suffer after death; nor will the infidels be able to reproach us with our mistake: but should our hopes and their fears prove true, what miserable torments must they then undergo! this subject enlarged on. Let us consider therefore, when we judge of religion, that something more

depends on our choice than the credit of our judgment and the opinion of the world. Let us trust ourselves with ourselves, and retreat from the influence of dissolute companions, and take the advice of the Psalmist, stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart, and in your chamber, and be still.

DISCOURSE XXXIV.

LUKE, CHAP. XVI. VERSE 31.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.

IT is shown that in matters of reason, as well as in objects of sense, we may at first be deceived by the fair appearance of things which on examination prove worthless. This seems to be the case of the argument in which the text is concerned. Who would not think that the coming of one from the dead would effectually convince an unbeliever? Yet we are told by our Saviour it would have no effect he who is not convinced by the evidence which God has already given of a future judgment, would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. Our Saviour does not mean to deny that the coming of one from the dead is an evidence of a future state; but that they who would not submit to the authority of a divine revelation, would not submit to this. The reason of this judgment is considered : I. If the evidence of revelation be in itself greater and more convincing than the evidence given by one from the dead could possibly be, then there is no reason to expect that he who rejects the greater should submit to the less authority: II. If the unbeliever's objections to the authority of revelation be stronger against the authority of one coming from the dead, he cannot pass over that in one case which he stumbles at in the other: III. If unbelief arises from the corruption of a mind which hates to be reformed, and rejects the evidence because it will not admit the doctrine, not the doctrine because it cannot admit the evidence; in this case all proofs will be alike; and it is on this that our Saviour chiefly grounds his judgment. In the first place, as the authority of a dead man is no more than that of a traveller who relates things of countries through which he has passed, how are we sure that he will not deceive us? are we even sure that it is impossible for any being of the other world to personate a dead man whom we formerly knew? To prove that there is another world, and beings belonging to it, is not proving a future state, that is, a world in which dead men shall live. Christ's resurrection was not merely the apparition of a dead man he foretold the time and circumstances of it, and put the proof of his mission and doctrine on its performance. His resurrection therefore became a proof that the doctrine he taught was the doctrine of him who had

power to raise the dead; so that the authority of our Saviour's word after his resurrection, being the authority of him who has power to raise the dead, must be greater than that of any man dead or living; and proves a commission from the highest power to teach the world; which cannot be proved merely by the appearance of one from the dead. To the question why Lazarus and the rest did not publish their knowlege of the other world, it may be answered, they were merely passive in their resurrection, and brought no more authority from the grave than they carried to it, and therefore had no right to set up for teachers: in proof of Christ's resurrection, there was warning given to expect it; and the duration and frequency of his appearance after he had risen, enabled those who saw him to become familiar with it, and qualified them to judge rightly of what they heard and saw; and as this appearance was in consequence of his own prediction, we cannot doubt that it was a true and proper resurrection of his body; it being easier to imagine that he should rise to fulfil his prediction, than that, being really dead, he should contrive and execute any thing that should seem to fulfil it. To satisfy those who affirm that they cannot depend on the credit of others in a case of this nature, it is considered, whether he who believes on the credit of a private apparition to himself, believes on a surer evidence than he who receives the gospel account on that evidence on which it at present stands: it is shown that the very surprise and fright that would be caused by our seeing one come from the dead, would be a great reason for us to suspect afterwards the report which our senses made of what they had seen-thus it was with those who saw our Lord on his first appearance; nor could any thing but his staying so long with them have cured this, and qualified them to judge for themselves, or report to others with authority what they saw: we may therefore judge whether it is safer to believe the concurring testimony of many persons in their right senses so well qualified to judge, or rely on ourselves when we were hardly masters of our senses. The question, however, is not whether we can be convinced of the fact of such an appearance, but whether we should in that case have a better foundation for faith and religion than the present revelation affords? This is answered by our Saviour in the text, and will appear by considering, Secondly, That the objections of unbelievers to the authority of revelation will lie stronger against the authority of one coming from the dead. Whatever has been said against the authority of the gospel revelation, will be applicable also to this kind of it: consequently those who on the foot of natural religion object to the doctrine of the gospel, must much more object to the authority of one coming from the dead. With the atheist, who stands out against the evidence of all nature, no inferior evidence can weigh; he would as easily account for one dead man's recovering life and motion, as he does for the life and motion of so many men whom he daily sees. But what can an unprejudiced person make of this evidence, allowing the dead man's appearance to be real, and his design honest? Should he tell us that the Christian faith is true, we should have less reason to believe him than we have to believe Christ

and his Apostles; and should an unbeliever receive the gospel on such evidence, on what would he rest his faith? The mission of Christ is proved by the completion of prophecies, by the signs and wonders which he wrought by the hand of God, and by his resurrection. We can appeal to the known history of the founders of our religion, in proof of their freedom from worldly cunning and policy. But how can we support the suspected credit of one from the dead? Unless we can prove that there are no evil spirits, or no evil men dead, we cannot clear him from suspicion. Thus, if we cannot digest the evidence of the gospel, in vain do we call for help from the other world. The truth of our Saviour's words will farther appear by considering, Thirdly, The temper of infidelity: where unbelief arises from a corrupt mind, which rejects the evidence from hatred of the doctrine, all proofs will be alike; and this is the case our Lord seems to have had in view: for the request to Abraham was made in behalf of men who lived wantonly and luxuriously. Abraham answers, that they had already sufficient evidence of these things if they would make use of it; and the rich man still insists, but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent: then follows the text, which is the last resolution of this case. We have reason to suspect that no new lights or evidences would be effectual in reclaiming hardened sinners: they might be terrified for a time; but when the infidel had conquered his own fears, he would conclude that all religion is made up of that fear which he felt himself, and which others cannot so manfully get rid of: that it is in the nature of man to withstand such evidences, may be learned from the example of Pharoah, and of the guards who were eye-witnesses of our Lord's resurrection. It is shown that belief does not imply obedience, as all sinners are not infidels; and why should obedience be the consequence of belief in one case more than another? The strongest arguments for obedience are afforded by the gospel; therefore he who believes and yet disobeys it, will not be reformed by any other evidence: so that our Saviour's judgment is just with regard to all infidels and sinners. God having once sent his own Son from the dead to admonish us, has already given a sufficient evidence of all things which we are concerned to know; and all other intercourse with the other world would be useless.

DISCOURSE XXXV.

PSALM XIX. VERSE 12.

Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.

SELF-EXAMINATION, the only method of obtaining a distinct knowlege of our sins: hence the frequency of exhortation to undertake

PART I.

G

it. As in temporal concerns, men whose prodigality has reduced them to extreme poverty and distress, find themselves unable to state their accounts, and come to an exact knowlege of their affairs; so in spiritual matters, those that have been long acquainted with vice and strangers to reflection, when they begin seriously to repent, know in general that they have a heavy weight of sin on their souls, though the particulars they are able to recollect fall very short of the sense which they have of their condition: thus, not being able to satisfy themselves that their repentance is perfect, they do not always enjoy that peace and tranquillity which they expected as the fruit of it.

The holy Psalmist had this sense of his condition when he expressed himself in the words of the text, and addressed God as his only refuge. The great comfort to be derived from God's wisdom, in setting before us the examples of good men in their lowest and most imperfect state, considered. The words of the text, considered without regard to the person who spoke them, do not admit of such consolatory conclusions, as when they are considered to have been uttered by David, of whose repentance and acceptance we do not doubt; for in this point of view they afford us two propositions: I. That the security and efficacy of repentance do not depend on a particular recollection of all our errors: II. That for such errors as we cannot recollect, a general confession and repentance will be sufficient.

These two propositions contain the plain doctrine of the text: but that we may not mistake in the application of it to ourselves, and suppose that a wilful ignorance of our sins will insure forgiveness, it is necessary to examine the nature of what may fairly be called secret sins. And-I. We may reckon among them those for which our liturgy has taught us to ask repentance and forgiveness, under the general names of negligences and ignorances; for neglect of our duty, and negligence in discharging it, are two different things; the one arising from aversion to the work, and consent of the mind,—the other from want of thought and resolution. The best men often complain that, in the midst of their devotion, some chance object, some favorite care, diverts their attention, and distracts their thoughts: offences of this kind are so frequent in every part of our duty, that it is impossible to bring every single act to our remembrance. Secondly, Sins of ignorance are likewise secret sins: where there is no law, says the Apostle, there is no transgression. But when men venture boldly on actions, conscious that they know not whether they are going right or wrong, their sin is presumption, and not ignorance: repentance for this not to be reckoned with that for our secret sins: for if a man thinks virtue and vice so indifferent, that he may venture to follow them blindfold, this is a proof that his heart is not right with God. But though this ignorance may be presumptuous and incur responsibility, the follies and sins it leads to may be unknown to us; and these, though aggravated by circumstances, can only be lamented under the character of secret sins. Thirdly, Nothing shows corruption of heart more than confirmed habits of sinning; and yet in this perfection of vice we lose the very sense of sin: instance of this effect