means of repentance. Again, if an irrefiftible degree of grace be neceffary to true repentance, it is plain, Chorazin and Bethfaida had it not, because they did not repent; and yet, without this, Tyre and Sidon could not fincerely have repented: therefore our Saviour here mult fpeak of a mere external repentance. Thus fome argue, as they do likewife concerning the repentance of Nineveh, making that alfo to be merely external, because they are loth to allow true repentance to Heathens.

But it feems very plain, that our Saviour does speak of an inward, and true and fincere repentance; and therefore the doctrines that will not admit this, are not true for our Saviour fpeaks of the fame kind of repen tance, that he upbraided them with the want of, in the verfe before the text. Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not; that is, because they were not brought to a fincere repentance, by his preaching, which was confirmed by fuch great miracles. It is true, indeed, he mentions the outward figns and expreffions of repentance, when he fays, they would have repented in fuckcloth and afhes; but not as excluding inward and real repentance, but fuppofing it, as is evident from what is faid in the next verfe, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you: for though an external and hypocritical repentance may prevail with God to put off temporal judgments, yet furely it will be but a very finall, if any mitigation of our condemnation at the day of judgment: fo that the repentance here fpoken of cannot, without great vioIence to the fcope and defign of our Saviour's argument, be understood only of an external ihew and appearance of repentance.

II. The next difficulty to be cleared, is, in what fense it is here faid, that if the mighty works which were done by our Saviour among the Jews, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented.

Some, to avoid the inconvenience which they apprehend to be in the more ftrict and literal fenfe of the words, look upon them as hyperbolical, as we fay, "Such a thing would move a stone," or the like, when

we would exprefs fomething to be very fad and griev ous; fo here, to aggravate the impenitence of the Jews, our Saviour fays, that they refifted those means of repentance, which one would think fhould almost have prevailed upon the greatest and moft obdurate finners that ever were; but not intending to affirm any fuch thing.

But there is no colour for this, if we confider that our Saviour reafons from the fuppofition of fuch a thing, that therefore the cafe of Tyre and Sidon would really be more tolerable at the day of judgment than theirs, because they would have repented, but the Jews did not.

Others perhaps understand the words too strictly, as if our Saviour had fpoken according to what he certainly foreknew would have happened to the people of Tyre and Sidon, if fuch miracles had been wrought among them. And no doubt but in that cafe God did certainly know what they would have done; but yet I fhould rather chufe to understand the words as fpoken popularly, according to what in all human appearance and probability would have happened if fuch external means of repentance, accompanied with an ordinary grace of God, had been afforded to them of Tyre and Sidon. And thus the old Latin interpreter seems to have underftood the next words, If the mighty works which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, Eusvav av, forte manfiffent, it would perhaps have remained to this day, in all likelihood it had continued till now. Much the fame with that paffage of the Prophet, Ezek. iii. 5. 6. Thou art not fent to a people of a strange speech, and of a hard language, but to the house of Ifrael: Surely had I fent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee; that is, in all probability they would; there is little doubt to be made of the contrary. And this is fufficient foundation for our Saviour's reafoning afterwards, that it Shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for them. And if we may judge what they would have done before, by what they did afterward, there is more than probability for it for we read in the 2ift chapter of the Acts, ver. 3. and ver. 27. that the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon received the gofpel, and

kindly entertained St. Paul, when the Jews rejected

them both. The

1

III. Thing to be cleared is, What is meant by long ago; they would have repented long ago.

Some understand this, as if our Saviour had faid, they would not have stood out fo long againft fo much preaching, and fo many miracles; but would at firft have repented, long before our Saviour gave over Chorazin and Bethfaida for obftinate and incorrigible finners; they would not only have repented at laft, but much sooner, and without fo much ado.

But this does not feem to be the meaning of the words; but our Saviour feems to refer to thofe ancient times long ago; when the Prophets denounced judgments against Tyre and Sidon, particularly the Prophet Ezekiel; and to fay, that if in thofe days the preaching of that Prophet had been accompanied with fuch miracles as our Saviour wrought in the cities of Galilee, Tyre and Sidon would in those days have repented.

The laft and greatest difficulty of all is, how this af fertion of our Saviour, that miracles would have converted Tyre and Sidon, is reconcilable with that dif course of our Saviour's, Luke xvi. in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, that those who would not believe Mofes and the Prophets, would not have been perfuaded though one had rofe from the dead.

The true anfwer to which difficulty, in fhort, is this; that when our Saviour fays, if they believe not Mofes and the Prophets, neither will they be perfuaded though one rofe from the dead; he does not hereby weaken the force of miracles, or their aptnefs to convince men, and bring them to repentance, but rather confirm it, because Mofes and the Prophets had the atteftation of many and great miracles; and therefore there was no reafon to think, that they who would not believe the writings and doctrine of Mofes and the Prophets, which had the confirmation of fo many miracles, and was own ed by themselves to have fo, fhould be wrought upon by one particular miracle, the coming of one from the dead, and fpeaking unto them: or, however this might move and aftonifh them for the prefent; yet it was not likely that the grace of God fhould concur with fuch

an extraordinary means, to render it effectual to their converfion and repentance, who had wilfully defpifed, and obftinately rejected that which had a much greater confirmation than the difcourfe of a man rifen from the dead, and was appointed by God for the ordinary and standing means of bringing men to repentance. So that our Saviour might with reafon enough pronounce that Tyre and Sidon, who never had a standing revelation of God to bring them to repentance, nor had rejected it, would, upon miracles extraordinarily wrought among them, have repented; and yet deny it elfewhere to be likely, that they who rejected a standing revelation of God, confirmed by miracles, which called them to repentance, would probably be brought to repentance by a particular miracle; or that God fhould afford his grace to make it effectual for their repentance and falvation.

The words being thus cleared, I come now to raise fuch obfervations from them, as may be instructive and ufeful to us.

I. I obferve from this difcourfe of our Saviour, that miracles are of great force and efficacy to bring men to repentance.

This our Saviour's difcourfe here fuppofeth; otherwife their impenitence had not been fo criminal and inexcufable upon that account, that fuch mighty works had been done among them, as would probably have prevailed upon fome of the worst people that had been in the world; for fuch were the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, guilty of great covetoufnefs and fraud, pride and luxury, the ufual fins of places of great traffick and commerce: and fuch, to be fure, was Sodom; and yet our Saviour tells us, that the miracles which he had wrought in the cities of Ifrael, would, in all probability, have brought thofe great finners to repentance, namely, by bringing them to faith, and convincing them of the truth and divinity of that doctrine which he preached unto them, and which contains fuch powerful arguments to repentance and amendment of life.

II. I obferve likewife from our Saviour's difcourse, that God is not always obliged to work miracles for the converfion of finners, It is great goodness in him

to

to afford fufficient means of repentance to men, as he did to Tyre and Sidon, in calling them to repentance by his Prophet; though fuch miracles were not wrought among them, as God thought fit to accompany our Saviour's preaching withal.

This I obferve, to prevent a kind of bold and faucy objection, which fome would perhaps be apt to make; If Tyre and Sidon would have repented, had fuch miracles been wrought among them, as our Saviour wrought in Chorazin and Bethfaida, why were they not wrought, that they might have repented? To which it is fufficient answer to say, that God is not obliged to do all that is poffible to be done, to reclaim men from their fins; he is not obliged to overpower their wills, and to work irrefiftibly upon their minds, which he can easily do; he is not obliged to work miracles for every particular man's conviction; nor where he vouchfafeth to do this, is he obliged always to work the greatest and molt convincing miracles; his goodnefs will not fuffer him to omit what is neceffary and fufficient to bring men to repentance and happiness; nay, beyond this he many times does more; but it is fufficient to vindicate the justice and goodnefs of God, that he is not wanting to us, in affording the means neceffary to reclaim us from our fins, and to bring us to goodness. That which is properly our part, is to make ufe of those means which God affords us to become better, and not to prefcribe to him how much he fhould do for us; to be thankful that he hath done fo much, and not to find fault with him for having done no more.

III. I obferve farther from our Saviour's difcourfe, that the external means of repentance which God affords to men, do fuppofe an inward grace of God accompanying them, fufficiently enabling men to repent, if it be not their own fault; I fay, a fufficient grace of God accompanying the outward means of repentance, till, by our wilful and obftinate neglect and refiftance, and oppofition of this grace, we provoke God to withdraw it from the means, or else to withdraw both the grace, and the means from us; otherways impenitence after fuch external means afforded, would be no new and fpecial fault. For if the concurrence of God's

grace