stant desires; among which the greatest is the desire of life: this point enlarged on, showing that as life is but short, and must end in death, the life of this world cannot be an adequate object of desire, or make a man happy; because it does not answer to his natural desire, but leaves him restless and uneasy. Another natural and constant desire, grafted on the former, and springing from it, is that of happiness uninterrupted by afflictions of any kind: hence the fear of losing what we possess often equals the pleasure of the possession; which shows that no temporary possession can justify the mind of man; thus proving that the natural desire is that of perpetual uninterrupted happiness: nothing less than this can make a man happy; and this the world does not afford. To place our happiness therefore on this life, and the things of it, is, at best, to place it where it cannot be had. We can never free ourselves from the natural desires of life and happiness: this point enlarged on in the case of an atheist, who, retaining the desire of eternal happiness, but denying the possibility of it, reduces himself to a state which cannot afford him happiness: so that to have desires which cannot end in enjoyment for want of suitable objects, is to have desires only to make us miserable. If then this world has nothing that can make us happy, it cannot be the effect of wisdom to seek it there: so that the first conclusion of reason is, that the things of this world being temporal, and our desires adapted to the fruition of things eternal, this world can never make us happy we must therefore seek where we may meet with objects suited to our desires, and thus arrive at perfect happiness: so that the voice of nature speaks the same language as our Saviour, (Matt. vi. 19. 20): these verses explained. That the things which are seen are temporal, is no sufficient proof that there are things which are not seen which are eternal; though it is a great presumption that God, not having fitted this world to our desires, has fitted our desires to another world, and has not given us these cravings of nature merely to vex us without the possibility of their being satisfied. The things of this world however being temporal, is a proof that they cannot make us happy. Hence religion becomes a very serious concern, since it alone can furnish objects adapted to our natural desires. Is it not then very unnatural to see a man rejoice and triumph in the thoughts that there is no eternal life or happiness? It is indeed better not to be, than to be miserable; the thoughts therefore of dropping into eternal silence may be the refuge of guilty fear, but never can be a natural joy to the soul of man, which longs for everlasting life. The only reason why any man can wish there may be no other world is, that he may more freely enjoy this; a wise reason, if we consider the value of this world, and how fleeting the things of it are. So little do men gain by gaining this world, or lose by losing it, that its concerns would weigh but light in this question, were not men guided more by the violence of passion than either by reason or the regular desires of nature. For, secondly, suppose that religion were very uncertain, and a man liable to be deceived in his hopes of future rewards; let us again examine by this rule, that the things which are seen are temporal, the consequence of this mistake,

and how much a man would suffer by it. In ordinary life the pleasures that are consistent with innocence will be found to afford more real satisfaction than the vicious man can ever receive from the gratification of his sensual desires. But we will waive this topic, as the text supposes us to give up this world, and submit to many hardships in order to obtain the other; and it is always difficult to submit to the restraints of religion, till men have mastered their appetites, and learned to use this world as not abusing it. Say then, that a man loses the pleasures of this world in pursuing those of another; his loss must be valued according to the worth of the thing lost. Now the things of this world being very uncertain possessions, their loss cannot be set very high: ill-success and disappointments often render all our labor in pursuing them abortive; and few attain to the end of their desires. This being the case, he that pursues the glories of another world to the neglect of this, may perhaps lose just nothing at all this point enlarged on. We may learn then, from the nature of worldly possessions and our own experience, what chance a man has of being satisfied with the enjoyments of life, even if he takes the utmost pains for them: possibly he may never get them; for there are many pretenders who are ever jostling one another out: possibly too, if he does get them, they may leave him before he has half done with them, or he may even not relish them; for many things are proved by possession to be but empty and vain allurements. Now this chance for worldly happiness is all that a man quits for religion: this point enlarged on. On the other side, if religion reaches no farther than this life, still it makes men easy under its disappointments; so that whatever the loss of the world may be to a worldly man, yet to a truly religious one it is inconsiderable, as he is comforted and confirmed against such losses by the hopes of more solid enjoyments. Add this therefore to the account, and religion will appear to be the surest step, if not to happiness, yet to ease and contentment: this topic enlarged on, showing that, as things go, it is well if the pain and uneasiness of losing the world be not all we get by pursuing it; whilst religion teaches us that not to enjoy its pleasures is no great mischief: so that, if there be no other world but this, we are sure by religion to get the second best thing that can be had, that is, contentment. Admit that the principal thing is to have and enjoy the things we want; the next best is to be easy without them: the first the world rarely grants; the next religion never denies. And thus far we may argue from the nature of worldly things, without making any comparison between them and those of another life; for this comparison will even make it reasonable to choose the sorrows of life for the sake of future glory; since the things which are not seen are eternal. Of the nature of future happiness we know but little: the descriptions of it in Scripture are figurative, and lead not to the true knowlege of its glories: possibly this world affords no notions proper to express the happiness of Heaven, which therefore can be described only by figures taken from our present sense of pleasure; from hence we only argue that the happiness is very great: but we have a clear notion of duration; here therefore the Scripture speaks

plain, and tells us that this happiness is for evermore. Whosoever, says our Saviour, believeth in me shall live, though he die; and whosoever believeth on me shall not die eternally. This is the natural happiness of man, since this alone can answer his natural desire of eternal life; and nothing can be more evident to sense than this is to reason, that something has been from all eternity, and shall continue to all eternity; so that our desires of eternity are not loose_illgrounded desires, but have objects in nature fitted to them. This being the case, is it not agreeable to the very instinct of our nature to seek those things which can alone make for our happiness, if by any means we may attain to them? To lead us to them is the work of religion to be employed in it therefore, is to be employed in the work of nature, which is to seek its own happiness and perfection. If religion be attended with difficulties, yet the glories we attain thereby are worth the purchase: this point enlarged on. It is wise to retire from the pleasures of the world, if it were only to guard against this certain evil consequence, that if we follow things present to the neglect of future happiness, the time will come when our present enjoyments will be past, when things future will be growing into things present then this evil thought alone will haunt us, that for the time past we have been comforted, but must be for the time to come tormented. Shortlived as men are, they often outlast the world, that is, its enjoyments: this point enlarged on. Concluding reflections.

DISCOURSE LXI.

GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE, VERSE 3.

It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

IT is at all times the duty of pastors in the Christian church to be zealous in maintaining and propagating the faith of the gospel; but there are some seasons which more especially require of them vigilance to prevent, and of the people care to avoid, the danger of growing errors and superstitions. Such was the occasion of this Epistle, as we learn in verse 4. hence the Apostle's exhortation in the text. If this was needful in the Apostle's time, when the mischief began first to show itself, what must it be in ours, when the evil seems full-grown, and to surround us in different shapes? when superstition on the one hand, and irreligion on the other, have left true Christians but a narrow path to walk in, and the transition from one of these extremes to the other is so much easier than from either to the truth that lies between them?

Another difficulty also distinguishes our times: St. Jude com

plains that teachers of perverse doctrines had crept in by stealth, though the churches themselves taught the true faith of the gospel. But in these latter days all churches are tainted with the infection by corrupt members; the errors which we have to contend with are taught by authority as the necessary conditions of Christian communion this point enlarged on. : It is now then more needful than ever to exhort men to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. This however is to little purpose, unless you give them some sure mark of the right faith. If you ask of particular churches or societies of Christians which is the true faith, each answers that its own is right, and that of others wrong: hence no church must be believed on its own word alone, without giving a reason of its faith yet this pretence of authority is all that can or does justify the dominion of the church of Rome. With how much better grace might St. Jude have told them of his own time, on his own authority, what the true faith was; but so far from doing it, he told them to inquire what it was as formerly delivered to Christians. Church authority is one of those unhappy subjects which is seldom seen but from one of its extremes. With some persons it can do every thing; with others, nothing: these considerations are too copious for the compass of a sermon; some observations are made on the text, which may be of use if duly considered. Firstly since an Apostle of Christ, in the early days of the church, sent Christians to inquire after the faith delivered from the beginning, the Apostles themselves could be but teachers and witnesses of it, and had no authority or commission to make new articles; otherwise St. Jude's conduct would have been absurd. This truth may be proved from our Saviour's own words, (Mark xvi. 15.) That the gospel was to be taught, not altered, is more expressly declared by St. Matthew, (xxviii. 20.): the promise annexed, (ver. 20.) and lo! I am with you to the end of the world, relates to their commission; and on it they could depend only whilst they taught what Christ had commanded. Previously to our Saviour's leaving the world, he told his Apostles that he would send them a Comforter, (John xiv. 16.); and he describes his office, (ver. 26.) These verses enlarged on, showing that the office of the Spirit, and the Spirit itself, was given only to make them teachers of Christ's doctrine.

The conduct of the Apostles is next considered, and how they executed the commission intrusted to them. They first elected an Apostle in the place of Judas, and without doubt considered well the qualifications necessary to the office: these are declared by St. Peter (Acts i. 21. 22.) to belong to witnesses of the doctrines and works of Christ; their business therefore evidently was to report the doctrines of Christ, not to deliver doctrines of their own. St. Luke particularly tells us that he wrote his gospel, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, (i. 3.): thus following the rule prescribed by St. Jude, and reporting the faith once delivered to the saints. St. John also refers to the beginning and first revelation of the gospel, to show the authority of the doctrines which he delivered, (1 Epist. i. 1-3.): these verses explained,

showing also that a right of fellowship with the Apostles, or a right to church communion, depends on embracing the faith once delivered to the saints, and on no other doctrines of later date whatever. St. Paul's case was a singular one; he had not the qualification required in the Acts, or in the Epistle of St. Peter; but the way by which this defect was supplied, will justify the observation we are on in the strongest manner imaginable. As St. Paul conversed not with Christ in the flesh, so had he not the gospel from any of the Apostles who did; but he had it by immediate revelation from Christ himself; and therefore, says our Lord, I have appeared unto thee, &c. (Acts xxvi. 16.): hence he speaks to the Galatians, of his own authority, as an Apostle, (Gal. i. 1. 11. 12.) And this revela-. tion extended not merely to points of doctrines, but to the knowlege of historical facts also; as is plain from 1 Cor. xi. 23. All these things prove that the Apostles were witnesses and teachers of the faith, and had no authority to add any thing to the doctrine of Christ, or to declare new articles. If then the Apostles who were so highly gifted, had not this power, can their successors without great impiety pretend to it? this point enlarged on in the case of the Romish church. Can then any sober Christian trust himself to such guides, and not tremble when he reads, though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed? When the corruptions of the church of Rome were generally felt and complained of, and no applications caused any alteration, the fear of owning an error being more. powerful to continue old errors than the force of truth or even conviction was to reform them; what was left for serious Christians to do, but to separate between the old doctrines of the gospel and the new inventions of men, and to build up a church on the foundation of the Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner-stone?

Hitherto we have spoken only of the doctrines of the gospel, and points of Christian faith. If we extend this farther, and say that the Apostles and the church after them had no more authority in any thing else, we shall run into an extreme that can produce nothing but disorder and confusion, and must in the end be subversive of all Christian societies. Let us now then consider the grounds of this distinction, as found in holy Scripture. We have this direction from our Saviour: if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, &c. (Matth. xviii. 15-17.) In cases which fall under this direction, the church has a judicial authority, though it may be and often has been flagrantly abused to say it has none, is to deny not only the authority of the church, but of Christ also, who gave the direction. This authority is noticed by St. Paul, who rebukes the church of Corinth for not using it to separate from them the incestuous person, who had given offence, not to one, but to all Christians. Another power which the Apostles had and exercised, was the authority of settling churches, and prescribing rules of order and decency to them. St. Paul's conduct in the disputes which happened in the church of Corinth, will show how carefully he distinguishes between his duty to preach the pure gospel of Christ, and his authority in matters of order and decency. The Corinthians had