TWO SERMONS.
THE FIRST, ON
Comparing spiritual Things with spiritual,
PREACHED AT THE PRIMARY VISITATION of the LORD BISHOP of WINCHESTER, At SOUTHAMPTON, JULY 15, 1788; AND PRINTED At the Request of the BISHOP, and CLERGY: THE SECOND,
On the Simplicity of the Gospel,
PREACHED LIKEWISE At SOUTHAMPTON, AT THE VISITATION of the CHANCELLOR of the Diocese, September 13, 1780; AND NOW PRINTED AT HIS REQUEST;
By WILLIAM GILPIN, M. A. PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY; AND VICAR OF BOLDRE, IN NEW-FOREST, NEAR LYMINGTON.
LONDON; PRINTED FOR R. BLAMIRE, STRAND. 1788.
TO THE HONORABLE, AND RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, THIS SERMON IS INSCRIBED BY HIS LORDSHIP'S MOST OBEDIENT, AND MOST RESPECTFUL, HUMBLE SERVANT,
WILLIAM GILPIN.
SERMON I.
ON Comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 COR. ii. 13.
Which things we speak, not in the words, which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
WHEN St. Paul planted the gospel at Corinth, he found his designs chiefly opposed by two kinds of people.
The first were men of pleasure. Corinth lay commodiously for trade; and trade produces riches; and it had been early observed, that it was difficult for
rich men to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
They were more disposed to the pleasures, which riches furnish; than to the comforts, which religion administers: and even they, who had embraced christianity, found much work for the apostle in keeping them pure from the contagion, that was spread abroad.
Besides the gay, and thoughtless, the apostle had another kind of people to contend with. These were philosophers: and tho they were a more respectable set of men, than the other; they were, at the same time, perhaps more intractable. A state of learning is in itself no doubt, favourable to religion, at least in a certain degree; and has ever been found so: but the philosopher himself has sometimes too much wisdom to be taught. The Corinthian philosophers certainly had; and were in general rather inclined to add something of their own to amend the gospel; than to accept it in that simplicity, in which Paul preached it.
To the latter the text alludes. These philosophizing christians (many of whom were probably teachers also) the apostle endeavours to recall to the simplicity of the gospel. He sets before them his own example. He came not, he tells them,
with the excellency of speech, or the inticing words of man's wisdom.
He knew nothing among them, but
Jesus Christ, and him crucified:
adding, that he had never preached
the words, which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
In this passage the apostle gives us the only true rule of interpreting scripture; which rule I shall endeavour to illustrate, by shewing,
How the apostles were directed by it;
and
How it seems applicable to us.
The text has, I know, been applied by some interpreters to
persons,
rather than
things:
but, I think, the whole context favours the sense, in which I take it,
In the first place, the apostle tells us, he avoided
the words, which man's wisdom teacheth.
—In the apostle's days indeed man's wisdom had made only a little progress in the affairs of religion. We read of Hymeneus, Philetus, and a few others, who seemed desirous of being
teachers, before they understood what they affirmed.
But their number was small.
Man's wisdom however was a kind of leaven, which made a rapid progress. We need only cursorily examine ecclesiastical history to see it's mischievous effects. There we find men running such lengths of folly, extravagance, wildness, and I may add, of wickedness, that we may well suppose, it was in the spirit of
foresight,
that the apostle puts us so-much on our guard against man's wisdom. Man's wisdom hath filled innumerable volumes: the purity of the gospel is comprized in one.
In this ingrateful field we might wander long. The history of man's wisdom is the history of his opinions; and of these there is no end. Zeal, and indiscretion; pride, and vanity; bad meanings, and good meanings, have all contributed to interpret what the Holy Ghost teacheth by the words of man's wisdom. Instead therefore of wandering in this wide wilderness, let us fix our eyes on those great landmarks, which the apostle has set up to lead us safely through it.
The apostles were immediately inspired. They taught, as the Holy Ghost instructed. Immediate inspiration,
brought all things to their remembrance, whatever their blessed Lord had taught them.
At the same time, it should seem, that the inspiration of the apostles was restricted to what was
new
in the religion they taught—or if not wholly new, yet so obscurely shadowed out in prophecies, and prophetic types, that it needed certainly a full explanation. The great truths, with regard to the redemption of the world—the intercession of Christ—the conditions of acceptance—the universality of the christian religion—the motives it holds out— the purity it hath introduced into morals—the certainty of a future state—and of a last judgment—were all, no doubt strongly impressed on the minds of the apostles, and properly opened by
immediate inspiration.
In any of these great truths mistakes were dangerous—memory was frail—and there were yet no written records.—At the same time such notices, as were already on the records of inspiration— those divine truths contained in the books of the Old Testament—wanted no farther illustration from the Holy Ghost. Here nothing more seems to have been necessary, than the use of reason, and common sense. And thus the apostle distinguishes between the things, which God had
revealed by the spirit;
and the act of
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The one he calls
declaring the testimony of God:
the other was plainly the exertion only of reason. Nothing more than the exertion of reason was necessary to prove the connection between the Old Testament and the New—or to point out the completion of prophecies—or to shew, how the types of the law were fulfilled. Of this mode of
reasoning
we find abundant instances among the sacred writers—in the epistle to the Hebrews especially.
Thus then inspiration seems to have been necessary to direct the apostles in what was
hitherto unknown:
but human reason seemed sufficient to enable them to
apply
what had been
already
inspired.
Let us then now see, how this rule, which guided the apostles, appears applicable to us— or in what way we are to
speak what the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
In the first place, I think, it plainly appears, that we have no reason to expect immediate direction from
what the Holy Ghost teacheth.
To wait for desultory illapses of the spirit to lead us into truth, seems to have little countenance from scripture; unless indeed we apply to ourselves such passages, as by the fairest rules of interpretation can apply only to the apostles. And surely the greatest caution is necessary in settling a point, which, if it be an error, tends to confirm all other errors. When a man reasons himself into a mistake, he may reason himself out of it again. But when a man discards reason, and substitutes in it's room a divine instructor, every enthusiastic notion becomes then immediately stamped with the character of divine truth. The strange effects of such wildness we have often seen: and are sufficiently guarded against it by the apostle's rule.
As far indeed as a
holy life
is concerned, we are assured every where in scripture, that unless the endeavours of man are assisted by the Holy Spirit of God, which dwells within him, and to whose divine admonitions he ought ever to listen,
he can do nothing.
Here the divine aid is necessary. Man, as a
moral agent,
with all the mischiefs of the fall about him, wanted support.
But the
investigation of truth
is a different affair. It was not so much his
understanding,
that was disturbed; as his
will and affections,
that were perverted.
Wretched man,
that he was, he knew what was right; but he could not practise it. To
rectify his knowledge,
enough had been done: inspired truth was on record; and he had a rule given him to understand it. Farther aid would have rendered that rule unnecessary; and the expectation of any such aid, enthusiastic.
It is true indeed the pious Christian will read his bible with the best effect: and in this sense, no doubt, the Holy Spirit may be said to assist him in understanding the truth of scripture: for
he who does the will of God, will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.
But this is still only the application of scripture to the rectifying of his
affections.
To understand it as a
system of truth,
the rule given us
to compare spiritual things with spiritual,
seems abundantly sufficient. The New Testament is to us precisely in the state, in which the Old Testament was to the apostles. It is inspiration recorded. If farther inspiration be necessary, a written record is more than is necessary. If God gave the greater, why should he give the less?—It seems therefore fully sufficient for the understanding of scripture, to take it into our hands; and, in the spirit of sincerity, and piety, to compare one part with
another;
or with a
general view
of the whole. This seems in the apostle's idea the only key to the scriptures.
But now, it must be confessed, that a variety of causes have introduced difficulties into these sacred records. Ancient customs not well understood—ancient modes of speaking, not conformable to our own—ancient errors, generated in times of ignorance—modern prejudices, and opinions, grafted on texts of scripture misapplied—have united with other causes in disfiguring the plain, and simple truths of the gospel.
Why God suffered this
blot,
as some may call it, in the sacred record of his truth, we know not. Yet humbly tracing the reason of it in the analogy of his other works, we may refer it to the general law of a state of trial. Every thing here bears the marks of the fall. In our moral pursuits we are exercised with various difficulties: why not in the pursuit of religious truth? In both we may be assisted, if we apply the proper means. In one, the spirit of God will direct our endeavours: in the other, the great scriptural rule of
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The
honest application
of this rule, without doubt, would remove all the material difficulties of scripture. But instead of solving them in this way, we too often endeavour to adjust them by the
words of man's wisdom.
Hence arise all the disputes, that have divided the church.
The opinions, which have occasioned them, however varied, run commonly in two great channels—that of enthusiasm, and that of libertinism. The enthusiast reads his bible too literally: the libertine, (I use the word in it's less offensive sense) too laxly. The one utterly discards reason: the other thinks nonothing but reason worth attending to. The enthusiast loves a mystery, because he does not understand it: the libertine allows nothing to be a mystery; what he does not understand, he rejects.—Let us in an instance or two, apply our great scriptural rule to them both.
With regard to the jarring doctrine of faith, and works, it can never surely be settled by the literal application of a few scattered passages of St. Paul: but one should imagine it might easily be settled by comparing such passages with
other parts
of scripture; and still more by an appeal to the
whole scheme of christianity.
The very first book of the bible shews us, that the gospel was meant to restore us to that purity of life, which we had originally lost. This indeed seems to be the leading point of christianity; the word of God every where exhorting us to cleanse our hearts—to purify our affections—and to transform ourselves into new creatures.
Now it is certain, all this must be done by faith.
Whoever cometh to God through Christ, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them, who diligently seek him.
So that in this sense we may be said to be
justified by faith;
because without saith, and it's accompanying virtues, no man can attain that righteousness, which the gospel requires as a proper qualification for our receiving the merits of Christ's death. All christians therefore lay a stress on faith. The great difference is, the
partial
view makes it in itself an
end
—the
comparative
view makes it the
means
only of a purified heart, and a good life.
With regard again to an awful doctrine, which we have lately heard disputed with so much freedom; one should think, that a
comparison of spiritual things with spiritual
might lead us here also to one point. The whole bible, Old Testament and New, prophecies, and completion, seem so full both of the humanity and divinity of Christ, that one should wonder, how any one, who believes the scriptures, could separate the two ideas. If
only
human, how inconsistent! Here is a human being, who engages in the arduous task of redeeming his fellow-creatures from sin. We must either therefore give up all idea of redemption, of which the scripture is every where so full—or we must acknowledge the total
disproportion
of the work.
The idea of redemption indeed is sometimes given up: but still what difficulties remain, unless we give up the scriptures also? This human being shewed every sign of a divine nature. He knew the thoughts of man; which is always considered as one of the prerogatives of the Almighty. He could forgive sin; tho we all know, that
none can forgive sin, but God alone.
This human being also had the power—not only of working miracles himself, which many have possessed—but of commissioning others also to work them, which no one ever attempted before. This human being, tho cautious in the early part of his ministry; yet as he approached the end of it, spoke so freely, that those around him declared,
he made himself equal with God;
which was in fact the case. This human being also was endowed with the strange, and wonderful power of raising, not only others—but himself also from the dead: and not only professed in his lifetime, that he
would
send—but after his ascension to heaven, he actually
did
send, the Holy Ghost upon his faithful followers; communicating to them powers, unheard of before, for the propagation of his religion. In a word, when we take a comprehensive view of the scriptures, and draw together the innumerable passages, in which this great truth seems so plainly to be contained, it is a difficult matter to conceive how a denial of it is consistent with a belief in what we read. Nor is this a matter to be reasoned upon, like a point of mathematics, or natural philosophy: nor indeed does there seem a necessity to adduce the opinions of this, or that father of the church. The honest application of the rule before us, is all that seems really necessary.
That we do not understand this great mystery is certain: how indeed should we? but we understand as much of it, as we do of many other things—of the union of our souls and bodies particularly; in which we all believe.
There are some passages of scripture again, which have been thought more refractory—with regard, for instance, to the fore-knowledge of God; and such doctrines, as are supposed to be involved in it. For myself, I own, I find little difficulty in bringing all these passages to the apostle's test of comparison. But if any of them should be thought more unyielding; instead of reasoning upon them, we might still content ourselves with
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Tho we may not be able to obtain compleat satisfaction from a comparison with
particular passages;
we may surely obtain it from a comparison
with the whole scheme
of the gospel. The gospel was intended for the general good of man; and God's arbitrary will, can never run counter to his revealed will.
We act thus in common life. Suppose we look into a medical book for the remedy of some particular disorder; and should there find it prescribed, that we should mix a certain quantity of some drug (a quantity which we know would prove fatal) with other ingredients—how should we receive such a prescription? we know well, that the book is intended to administer to our health: but here is a prescription, which would infallibly destroy us. We should take it for granted therefore—either that the drug in question was put by mistake for some other drug—or if the book were foreign, that it was wrongly translated—or that there was some mistake in the quantity perhaps—or perhaps that we might not clearly understand the prescription— at any rate, we should certainly never swallow the potion; because it was very plain, that the intention of the book, and the prescription must agree.
Thus the apostle's rule of comparing
spiritual things with spiritual,
will in all cases direct us right. One part will generally explain another: but if any part happen to be more unyielding, we cannot be far wrong, if we compare the difficulty, whatever it is, with the general scheme and intention of the gospel.
But there is one difficulty still behind, which is the greatest of all—and that is, to bring our minds honestly to the application of this rule. The mind, when we examine a difficulty of scripture, should be blank paper. Alas! how often is it already scribbled over with
the words of man's wisdom!
Each of us hath his favourite system—the pride of all his studious hours—and in nothing does self-deceit triumph more, than in giving these favourite systems the gloss of scripture. It is the most difficult thing in the world to take the eye from some favourite point, and give it a general cast. And yet without this, no judgment can be formed.
In examining the works of man, as well as of God, we must judge from the
whole,
or our judgment will be erroneous. In architecture, for instance, should a man stand close to a column, and pronounce boldly, that it was too large, or too small, we see at once how absurd a judgment he might pass. Whereas, if he should step back a little— take a proper stand, and view the whole in one comprehensive view, he might perhaps find, that the part objected to, was in exact proportion; and the defect not in the object, but in himself.—It is often thus in our scriptural inquiries: we take a doctrine from a text.
And here I cannot help lamenting the singular ill-usage, which the scriptures have met with in being frittered into chapter, and verse, with so little attention to the sense. It is astonishing that the unauthorised barbarism of a printer
Robert Stephens, who was printing a concordance, and a bible at the same time, and took this method of adapting the one to the other.
(I cannot give it a softer name, tho he was certainly an able, and a learned man), should be received so universally through christendom. The only advantage, which this strange interruption of the sense of scripture
can
have, might just have been answered as well by marginal references. In the mean time, the mischief is glaring. The narrative, or the argument, instead of running on, like other compositions, in a continued discourse, is broken into aphorisms. In other books the paragraph ends, where the sense makes a pause. In the bible, whatever the sense is, it ends at every third or fourth line. Passages, thus insulated, receive an independent form. The sense in each little paragraph, seems drawn to a point; and the
unlettered
reader at least is apt to pause. Whereas, if he went on, and took all together, he would find, he must often affix a very different meaning to the words.
I have frequently heard, for instance, a verse at the beginning of the 1st epistle of St. Peter,
Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God,
alledged as an irrefragable argument in favour of predestination. But if this verse were added to the preceding one, from which it is violently separated, it would appear, that the
whole people
of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, are all
the elect according to the fore-knowledge of God.
Now it is absurd in the last degree, to suppose, that the
whole bulk
of these several nations were in a state of salvation: at the same time it is perfectly evangelical, to conceive them all invited to partake of the privileges of the gospel,
according to the fore-knowledge of God
—that is, according to the predictions of the prophets
That this is the sense to be affixed to the
fore-knowledge of God,
is evident from the tenth verse, in which we are told, that the
prophets prophesied of the grace that should come unto the Gentiles:
and if, after so many breaks, we may be allowed to bring the seventeenth verse into the argument, we are there told plainly, that
God without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man's work.
.
Few judicious churchmen, I suppose, would wish for a new translation of the bible. It could not soon acquire that general reverence, which is paid to the old one. But many perhaps would desire to see the errors of the old one corrected; tho with as little alteration as possible. The several late collations of MSS. would render this, I should think, no very difficult work. If however the wisdom of our superiors see any insuperable obstacle in going so far, one should suppose, at least, there could be none in detaching chapters, and verses into the margin. They are certainly unauthorised intruders.
Having thus considered the passage of scripture, I undertook to discourse on; and touched, tho very slightly, a very important subject—so important, and so often transgressed, that frequent hints upon it, can never be out of season—I shall just add a few remarks on the difference between
holding
an error, and
teaching
one.
Error is inseparable from the mind of man.
Humanum est errare,
was the honest confession of nature; and a state of grace points out the melancholy truth with still greater force. We humbly hope therefore, that as man, and error are so closely united, God will pardon our innocent errors—I mean such errors, as have no connection with guilt.
But yet our errors, tho innocent, as far as we ourselves are concerned, may to others be the source of great mischief. While they continue our own thoughts, they affect nobody: but when we suffer them to get abroad, they become cloathed in words—and perhaps in such words, as the text calls
the words of man's wisdom.
Thus many excellent men, I doubt not, may have carried the doctrine of faith too high.
Them
it injured not; every christian virtue perhaps flowing from it. In
their
minds therefore however erroneous the opinion, it may still be innocent.—But they may fall into a very egregious mistake, if they suppose from their own pious feelings, that this doctrine has always the same effect on others. It may create self-delusion. I should fear it might have a tendency to it; and may make men satisfied with themselves. Faith is an easy substitute for a good life.
Faith,
they are sure, they have; and as to
works,
they hear them always spoken of as of no value; which it is possible they may be too apt to apply in their own way: so all is well. It is certainly a very dangerous thing, to speak slightly of
works,
lest we should give a handle to the natural pravity of human nature.
Thus again, with regard to the other important subject, on which I touched, as there are many passages of scripture relating to the humanity of Christ as well as his divinity, I cannot persuade myself, (as some pious people have done) that an
exact
faith on this head is necessary to salvation. Numbers, I have no doubt, will be saved through the merits of Christ, who conceive him only as their lawgiver, and conscientiously obey his laws; tho they may not have those exalted ideas of his divine nature; to which our scriptural rule, I think, so directly leads. If their holy lives have attained the principal end of a better faith; they ought not surely to be branded with hard names, and considered among those,
who deny Christ before men.
We are sometimes told they ought; because without this exalted faith in the divine nature of a Saviour, the mind cannot attain those elevated heights of love, which the gospel prescribes.
One should think so indeed: but before we pass these harsh censures on others, let any of us, who do hold that doctrine, ask our own carnal hearts, whether it purify them in this exalted manner?
At the same time, I think, we have good ground to censure those, who publicly raise scruples. Why cannot they be satisfied with keeping their opinions at home?
When a man holds a religious opinion with such conscientious firmness, that he gives up his temporal interests for it's sake; tho the opinion may be erroneous, the man is virtuous: his character respectable.—But if, instead of suffering manfully for his opinion, he should set it up as a banner, and call people together under it; he should then, I think, look well to his motives. There may be a touch of latent vanity—there may be an over-weening of himself—the pride of being at the head of a sect—an oblique view to self-interest perhaps —or some other undue motive, which may insinuate itself, without well looking after, into his religious views. To
propagate
any error, is dangerous—but on disputable motives, it is doubly so. A man is no way put upon it: of course, he is answerable for the consequence. On a question of philosophy indeed, where an air-pump, or a crucible is concerned, it matters little: but where religion is the subject, it becomes a point of moment. To be silent, is at least safe. There can be no harm—and I think, no great share of modesty —in keeping an opinion to yourself, which has always been opposed by a great majority, and some of the wisest, and best men, both laymen, and churchmen, that ever lived.
But it is said, the examination of truth can do no harm.
None in the world to the truth itself. None to the candid, and able examiner of it. But to the undistinguishing many it may often do great harm. Indeed I know nothing of a more delicate nature, than the management of a polemical controversy. To answer a bold charge, seems necessary. But to
keep up the spirit
of a dispute by continually replying to an opponent, who is determined never to yield, seems more than is necessary. It may unsettle the minds of well-meaning people. It may lead them from things of more consequence. It may be offensive to see churchmen continually wrangling about points of religion. And tho these points may often be of little moment in themselves; yet they, who know less, may think essentials concerned; and the gospel itself of an unstable nature.—Besides I should always fear, that what was gained in argument, would be lost in piety— in charity most undoubtedly. Holy wars have ever been the worst of wars; and scriptural debates, the most intemperate.—And what end is gained? They rarely convince. People generally hold their own opinions; and the matter ends, as it began
Dr. Priestley very justly observes, that,
there is but little reason to expect, that any man, who has given the public his opinion on any subject of importance, will ever retract it.
See his Disquisitions, page 206.
. And as to any concern for the souls of men, in pure charity, one should think, they will not alledge this. If we allow salvation to their faith, they may surely be as condescending to ours.
After all, the world hath had enough on these subjects. There is not one of them, which hath not been over, and over debated. We have only the old argument dressed up anew. The sceptical inquirer cannot possibly mistake his way. The road is tracked by many wheels; and needful guide-posts are every where set up. From the knowledge abroad in the world, he may easily find abundance to satisfy all his enquiries.
The great conclusion from the whole, is, that the ministers of religion cannot be too cautious in avoiding the words, which
man's wisdom teacheth;
nor too careful
in comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Polemical divinity, no doubt hath a tendency to lead us aside. The great point before us is very different. Instead of employing our time on the difficult topics of the gospel, which concern few; it would serve the cause of the gospel better, to endeavour by every means, as we are best able, to inculcate the important truths of religion, which so much concern us all—the intention, and necessity of it—it's graces, and high offers—it's means of purifying our nature—it's conditions, and awful sanctions. These are truths which, tho well known, require daily inculcating; and placing in various lights. On examining therefore the whole intention, and tenor of the gospel—on
comparing spiritual things with spiritual,
we must be convinced, that the greatest service we can do to religion—and the best obedience we can shew to the gospel, consists in our uniting in a conscientious endeavour to draw a corrupt age to the practice of godliness—
keeping that which is committed to our trust, and avoiding profane, and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called; which too often spoil men through philosophy, and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
END OF THE FIRST SERMON.
SERMON II.
ON The Simplicity of the Gospel.
TO THE REVEREND DR. STURGES, CHANCELLOR OF THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER, THIS SERMON IS INSCRIBED BY HIS MOST OBEDIENT, AND VERY HUMBLE SERVANT, WILLIAM GILPIN.
2 COR. xi. 3.
I fear, lest, by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty; so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity, that is in Christ.
ONE of the first great objects of apostolical fear, in the matter of religious corruption, was judaism. The earliest converts were Jews; and they could not at once be brought to acknowledge the
simplicity that is in Christ.
Deep prejudices had taken root: the authority of Moses—their peculiar privileges—the grandeur of their temple—and splendor of it's worship, had gotten possession of their earliest conceptions; and had filled their minds with ideas, which were not easily erased by the simplicity of the gospel.
But tho judaism was the primary object of the apostle's fear; the passage before us leads us to suppose, his apprehensions had here taken another turn; and were rather directed to the temptations of the world.—We may consider it indeed, if we please, as prophecy. It has certainly the most genuine mark of prophecy— it has been exactly fulfilled. The simplicity of the gospel, in it's first age, could not be more corrupted by judaism; than it has been since by a concurrence of other mischievous causes.
In the following discourse, I shall just touch upon a few of those causes, pointed out by the apostle, which have corrupted the
simplicity that is in Christ;
and I shall then inquire, what part the ministers of the gospel should take in this matter. It is a subject neither new, nor curious. But if it be a common subject; it is, at least, a very interesting one; and can neither be too often reviewed, nor too deeply impressed.
In order to see how the simplicity that is in Christ, hath been corrupted, it may be necessary to inquire first, in what it consists. But the apostle hath not defined it; and therefore we may suppose, we are to gather a definition of it for ourselves.
Whoever reads the holy scriptures with the meek spirit of a learner, will feel the meaning of the expression better, than any logical distinctions can explain it to him. He will feel the
simplicity that is in Christ
growing upon him more, and more, as he becomes more intimately acquainted with the scriptures; and by degrees taking possession of his understanding and affections—he will feel a disposition forming itself in his mind, free from the prejudices of any sect—yet indulgent to the opinions of all—open to conviction—and above disingenuous cavil—zealous in searching for the truth—but gentle in maintaining it—equally ready to correct an error; and to acknowledge it. He will feel that the simplicity, which is in Christ will form his
heart,
as well as his
faith, and opinions.
He will not allow the precepts of religion to be refined by the glosses of the world—nor accommodated to it's fashions—nor considered as speculative points. His faith will be a directing principle; which raises him above the world— above it's hopes—above it's fears—and forms him into a chearful passenger through this state of trial; animated only by those holy hopes, which the gospel inspires.
That there are now, and have been in all ages, many
individuals,
who may, in a certain degree, be thus characterized, we have no doubt. But where shall we find the
national character
of a people under this description? In early days, when christians were of
one heart, and one soul,
we may suppose, that heart, and soul were truly christian. But it was at a time, when, we read, they had
all things in common.
When the necessary distinctions of society began to take place; then began also among christians, an opposition between the spirit of the world, and the
simplicity, that is in Christ.
This simplicity was in a degree tainted, even before the miraculous powers of the church ceased; and we may be assured the mischievous spirit, which then appeared, has not been idle through so long a tract of time; but hath continued extending it's influence in some countries more, in others less, according to the various circumstances of each. The New Testament is the record of the simplicity of the gospel: and modern history, but above all ecclesiastical history, is the record of it's corruption.
The apostle of the text is writing to the converts of a trading, and opulent town; not barbarous, and uninformed; but inlightened by all the philosophy, and worldly wisdom at that time in esteem. He foresaw what temptations their peculiar circumstances would draw them into. Worldly ideas of various kinds—vanity, pride, and ambition—avarice, profusion, and sensuality; in a word, all the arts of raising a fortune; and all the arts of consuming one, he knew, would be continually operating before their eyes: and how the simplicity of the gospel might be able to oppose these fascinating delusions, was the object of his fear.
Again, it might be in equal danger from the refinements of philosophy; and the acute reasonings of learned men; who trying it's simple principles by canons of human invention, and rules of logical exactness, would from these pronounce boldly on it's inconsistences, and defects.
The simplicity of the gospel might be powerfully opposed too by the ridicule of men of wit; who taking their topics of comparison from the fashions, and practices of the world, might display the folly, and absurdity of such doctrines, as they were inclined to discountenance.
All this was perfectly easy: for as christianity, and the world were at variance; arguments drawn from the world, and addressed to the world, were sure of being favourably heard.
That these were the motives of the apostle's apprehension, is very plain: for he tells his converts, he fears, they should be corrupted, as
the serpent had beguiled Eve.
To know therefore how that matter stood, we need only turn to the record of the fatal deed.
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food; and that it was pleasant to the eye; and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.
Short as this account is, we find in it a combination of interest, pleasure, vanity, and a false taste for knowledge, all co-operating, through the wiles of the devil, to impose upon our first parent. With these delusions, she was corrupted; and with these delusions we conclude the apostle feared his Corinthian converts might be corrupted also.
How far our case may be similar to that of the Corinthian converts, I should rather leave as matter of inference. All I wish to establish on
this head,
is, that we are assured, on the authority of an apostle, that the
simplicity, which is in Christ,
may be corrupted by such temptations, as certainly
do
abound amongst us—in our manners—in our amusements—in our literary pursuits; and in our general modes of intercourse with each other.
Some theorists may amuse themselves with an opinion, that religion is in a progressive state. It is at least a pleasing theory—and in one sense, no doubt, a very just one. If we believe in prophecy, we must believe, that the gospel will not only spread over the face of the earth; but that it's present state is a kind of preparation for that glorious state, of which we obtain a
general conception
from the apocalypse of St. John; tho the lofty figures employed in that description, leave the
detail
obscure.
But notwithstanding this
general progress
of the gospel, we may suppose it's light to be sometimes obscured in particular countries—or, in the apostle's language, it's
simplicity corrupted.
On this head I fear the general prevailing manners of our own country will not stand a scriptural test.
As the ministers of the gospel make a part of this tainted mass, we must not flatter ourselves, that we are not, in a degree, corrupted also. We read, in early days, of
deceitful workers transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ;
and we cannot conceive, that these
deceitful workers
are more uncommon now, or these
transformations
more rare. I mean not however at present to pursue so ingrateful a theme; I should rather wish to inquire, how far we have it in our power to counteract such corruption.
Even to oppose this torrent, with any success, no doubt, may be difficult enough. To restore the simplicity of the gospel is a vain thought. For that great event we must wait devoutly for those times, to which I have just alluded, when all offence shall be done away.
Some things may be wrong, which the legislature only can rectify: and tho we acknowledge the difficulty of moving these sacred foundations; yet favourable opportunities may perhaps arise, in future time, when a few things, which are now rather offensive, may be brought nearer the simplicity of the gospel. Many of our ablest churchmen have freely expressed their wishes on this head; and as these wishes become more general, they will of course, obtain more weight. Establishments however, after all, necessary as they are, must
necessarily
bring on their attendant evils; which serious men may bemoan—and in
part
may rectify; but, on the
whole,
they will ever have cause to lament, that the
nature of things,
in this corrupt state, is mixed with evil—and that the
nature of man,
will turn even his blessings into mischief.
We have also greatly to lament, that the manners of the great, are, in general, so far removed from the simplicity of the gospel; because the manners of the great will ever be the principal source of national manners. It is a happiness however, that in general these vitiated scenes are removed from the eyes of the people: and yet enough sometimes gets abroad to astonish those, who happily live at a distance from them. There is one day particularly, on which the great, and little world are, in some degree, on a level; and one place, in which they meet on an equal footing. We have it ever to lament, that so pleasing a harmony—an institution so delightfully calculated to insure benevolence by united devotion through the whole mass of the people, should be so generally disregarded. Even the very political use of this sacred institution, if it had no other, were sufficient to inforce a general observance of it on all, who have a love for public order. But the great should consider farther, that if
they
have no need of instruction —their
inferiors
at least have; who are always ready, on this, and every occasion, to shew their betters, how much they approve, and value the bad examples they set them.
Let things however be wrong in what degree they will—let the great and little world unite in treating the
simplicity, that is in Christ
with what contempt they please, it is still our part to do our best to preserve it; and to keep the remains of religion, as far as we can, and as long as we can, subsisting amongst us. Tho the
whole head is sick, and the heart faint,
and the physician's best skill can only palliate; it is always something to go so far.
Our blessed Saviour calls the ministers of the gospel
the salt of the earth.
It is a most expressive figure. It shews not only that there will be great corruption in the earth; but it shews farther, that the ministers of the gospel are the means, which God has appointed to oppose this corruption. Tho our influence cannot preserve the whole; yet still it may preserve a part. Tho we may have no effect on the general bulk of mankind; yet there may be many an individual, whose honest heart we may retain in the simplicity of the gospel.
We are not legislators; and things would not go on better, if we were. The only means, which we have to employ in this matter, lie in two easy words, our
doctrine,
and our
manners;
in both of which it should be our utmost endeavour to attain, as far as we can, and to impress upon others, the
simplicity that is in Christ.
The former, we must endeavour to preserve from the corruptions of
worldly wisdom;
the latter from the corruptions of
worldly fashions.
To
explain the word of God,
is certainly the most arduous business, in which the reason of man can engage. Every explanation of the sacred text, is, in fact, putting our own sense upon the words of scripture: and when we consider the very supine ignorance of the generality of the common people, who take their ideas of religion from
what we tell them;
it is certainly a very awful thought, and should make us endeavour to keep as close as possible to the
simplicity, that is in Christ.
It is in vain to attempt this without a thorough acquaintance with scripture; which will always suggest such passages to the memory, as, on a comparison with the subject we are upon, may direct us to the true scriptural sense.
The lawyer is obliged to study with attention a number of books, and to examine a variety of parallel cases, before he can be qualified to act in his profession. The physician is under the same necessity. And is it not a mortifying consideration, that, because the common people are obliged to take our prescriptions, just as we please to prescribe, we should for that reason prescribe carelesly; and without sufficiently consulting that book, which alone will enable us to do it properly?
Some think the
simplicity, that is in Christ,
consists in cloathing their sentiments always in
scripture-phrase.
I see no more reason for this, than for going about, as the apostles did, in sandals, with a scrip, and a staff. Modes of speech are just as much the fashion of times, and countries, as modes of dress; and need be as little observed. The scriptural mode of speech is highly figurative—very different from any mode now in use; and requires translation, as much as the original Greek. It is the
scriptural idea,
not the
scriptural mode of expression;
for which I am contending: and this may be lost in many ways. It may be narrowed to speak the opinions of a sect—or, it may be widened to speak the opinions of the world—or it may be lost in morals; when instead of preaching plainly, and simply on gospel-subjects, our discourses, with scriptural mottoes affixed, are short immethodical essays; in which the beginning can hardly be distinguished from the end—nor indeed what is aimed at, till the book is closed, just as the audience may suppose the subject will open.
There is another thing also, which often occasions our erring from the
simplicity, which is in Christ.
As the gospel is a covenant between God and man, it touches, of course, on such things, as relate to both. As far as it relates to God, it is, no doubt, a deep, mysterious subject; but as far as it relates to man, nothing can be more simple, and easy. Hence it is, that our religion, without any contradiction of terms, (peace be to all sceptical cavils!) is sometimes called the
mystery of godliness;
and sometimes
the simplicity of the gospel.
It is the
mystery of godliness,
as it relates to God's part in this gracious plan; and the
simplicity of the gospel,
as it relates to us. To the want of sufficient attention to this easy distinction perhaps arise not only many of the disputes, and misconceptions, and infusions of worldly wisdom, which have so often disgraced the gospel: but also much of that strange, unaccountable confusion of ideas, that perplexes, and confounds the understanding of the lower people. If the lost condition of man—his restoration, and redemption by Christ—the necessity of a holy life—the tendency of the gospel to make him happy both here, and hereafter—and other plain points, had generally been the subjects of popular discourses, we should not have had now that gross ignorance in matters of religion, and that variety of strange notions, and prejudices to combat; which we find amongst the common people, on all religious subjects; but especially on the sacrament of the Lord's supper. As nothing is more difficult than to eradicate old prejudices; nothing would have been more easy than to have prevented their getting ground at first. The plain truths of the gospel might have descended just as easily as misconception and error.
It should be our care then to accommodate our doctrine, as much as we can, to the
simplicity that is in Christ
—not to dwell upon it's
mysterious parts
—not to enter into the inquiries, how? and why?—nor to clog it with difficult, or refined questions; against which the apostle to Timothy, long ago, took abundant pains to guard us; but to preach it, as we are directed, with plainness—to lay the stress on it's obvious truths—and when we have occasion to mention a mysterious point, (one of those great points, which relate to God's part in the covenant of grace, rather than to man's) to be very careful of going too far—to keep as close as possible to scripture, lest we make a difficulty more difficult by endeavouring to explain, what cannot be explained. The less, in general, that is said on such points, the better.—One thing we should always remember; and that is to adapt our discourses to the
lower,
rather than the
higher
parts of our audience; that we may, like good ministers, dispense that gospel; whose peculiar characteristic it was, to
be preached to the poor.
I shall close this head, with the account, which an ancient heathen of the fourth century gives of the mode of preaching the gospel in his day.
The christian philosophy, says he, is very simple. It's principal concern is to regulate the manners of men; and to infuse worthy notions of the Deity. Obscure questions, and nice arguments, it avoids. Nor does it enter into the nature and foundation of virtue: but exhorts, in a general way, to the practice of it; which experience shews us is more effectual among the vulgar
See Lardner's Testimonies from Alexander of Lycopolis. Vol. IV. p. 11.
.
Tho this honest heathen had not a compleat idea of christianity, he seems however to have had so good a notion of it, that many christian pastors might take a lesson from him.
Our
manners
should be as simple as our
doctrine.
But you ask, what is simplicity of manners? It is a phrase of ambiguous meaning.
Let us not here again, puzzle ourselves with definitions. They who seek for close definitions on these subjects, I should fear, seek rather for evasion, than information. The scriptures have little to do with definitions. On these subjects, they speak to the heart, more than to the head. Whoever reads, with a desire to learn, the instructions, which our Saviour, and his apostles, give to the ministers of the gospel, will soon feel—unless indeed it be a point, which he wishes to overlook— not only in what the simplicity of our manners should consist—but also, that it should be our first, and most indispensible care.
And the reason of the thing, as we are preachers of the gospel, is plain; because the simplicity of our manners must give force to what we say. It is not every body, with his best endeavour, who can get hold of the properest method of communicating his ideas; or can practice that mode of application in his discourses, either publicly, or privately, which may have the best effect upon the people. But simplicity of manners is a mode of preaching, which makes up many defects—it is adapted to every capacity—every body understands it; and it adds a dignity, and consequence even to a discourse of less weight. Tho the common people are no good reasoners, there is however one mode of reasoning, at which they are very ready—that of inferring
doctrine
from
manners:
and they will not only make the latter a test of the former; but they will in general pay more attention to it likewise.
When the city of Antioch was disposed to receive the gospel; and the apostle Barnabas was sent from Jerusalem to promote the good work, which was there carrying on, the people seem to have been particularly influenced by his holy life;
for he was a good man,
says the apostolical historian,
and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith—and much people was added unto the Lord.
On the other hand, the purest doctrine will lose it's effect, among the common people at least, in proportion as they see their minister pay less attention to it himself. That apostolical apostrophe,
Thou that preachest to others, teachest thou not thyself?
will ever be the language of popular contempt.
There is another kind of contempt also, which every consistent man would particularly wish to avoid—and that is his own contempt of himself. What must that man's feelings be, whose life is spent in a continued variance with those truths, which he is
obliged to preach?
who must tell his hearers of governing their undue affections; and yet lets his own loose in all the vanities of a dissipated age? who must talk of the world as a pilgrimage: while every action of his life shews it to be his carnal home? who is obliged to preach the glories of a future state, and the joys of heaven: while his own happiness is plainly centered in worldly ambition, and worldly attentions?—Contempt abroad may be borne, if a man feel from the uprightness of his own heart, that he does not deserve it: but there is no refuge from contempt within—unless a man is past feeling, and sets at defiance the remonstrances even of common decency.
How far
the minister of the gospel should keep at a distance from the world—from it's ambitious views—it's interests—and it's party-contentions—
how far
he should stand aloof from it's pleasures; and abstain from many amusements, which tho perhaps innocent in themselves, may, (at least when countenanced by him,) have a tendency to
break down the fences
of religion, are questions—not proper indeed for me to determine: but very proper for every churchman to examine seriously in his own conscience. It is becoming surely that the ministers of a religion, which so intirely disclaims the world, should endeavour at least not to be much intangled in it. A morose character is not the alternative. Cheerfulness is the natural companion of religion. Sourness is an alien intruder. Amusements too are necessary: but I am not singular in thinking those amusements should rather be of the retired kind; than sought for amidst the noise, and bustle of the world. Riot, and excess generally attend the amusements of a number of people assembled with a purpose of being joyous; and what none would do alone, is not scrupled perhaps, where the
impropriety
(which, by the way, deserves often a severer name) is divided among a multitude. In scenes like these, the clerical
habit
is a blot: the clerical
character,
a still greater. I would not be thought harsh: I would not be thought uncomplying. The world, I know, is often shocked at hearing the precepts of the gospel opposed, in all their plainness, to the elegant fashions, which it adopts: and we are sometimes almost afraid, in our popular discourses, of opening gospel-truths so fully as we might; lest by saying more than the times will bear, we should injure a cause, which we wish to advance. Our blessed Lord himself was often obliged to speak in parables. But let the world, if it please, be the
deaf adder, which stoppeth it's ears,
there need be no apology surely for recommending gospel-truths in the plainest manner to the ministers of the gospel.
But the clerical character may be a check upon improprieties.
I should fear, not much. As we have the example however of our blessed Lord, who kept company with publicans, and sinners with a view to reform them; nothing farther can be said, if this be the
real motive:
tho to me it appears risking more, than the probability of advantage will insure.
After all, my brethren, it may be an easy matter, in an age of licence, to
satisfy
ourselves—if we make the
comparison only with others:
but I hope this is a kind of
satisfaction,
and a kind of
comparison,
in which none of us would willingly acquiesce. We talk of sectaries, and novel teachers; and cry,
the people have itching ears.
Would to God, no blame in this matter may rest upon ourselves! To speak with truth and candour, there does not seem, in general, to be so much simplicity, and propriety of manners amongst
us,
as there appears to be amongst several of our
dissenting brethren.
But propriety of manners is the dissenter's chief support. It is his worldly engine: and therefore his
motives
may be as worldly as ours.
They may, or may not be, for any thing we know. We have nothing to do with any motives but our own. It concerns us more to consider, whether certain truths lie not nearer home? Whether the established churchman declines the
heat of the day,
because his wages are double? Whether he spend his superfluity on the vanities of life, because those wages are abundant?—or, whether his manners are more lax, because those wages are more certain?—
The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few,
was a complaint of great authority in very early days— Things are not mended I should suppose, now. It is inconceivable how wrong the spiritual affairs of a parish get in a little time. Habits of vice, and inattention to every thing serious, make a quick progress. A few careless pastors, succeeding each other, leave a parish in a state of heathenism; and it must be a work of time, and labour—of length of time, of accumulated labour, to recover it from it's supineness. A generation may be lost; and no hope left but in a rising one—Whereas, if the care of one minister succeeded to that of another, each uniting simplicity of doctrine, with simplicity of manners, in a few years a great change might be wrought.
Thus, my brethren, I have given you my thoughts on a subject—not very recondite indeed; but very interesting. It is a serious business—a business too, in which we have all voluntarily engaged. We have all
put our hands to the plough
—and we know the consequence of
looking back.
Let us then cheerfully proceed; evermore uniting our prayers with our endeavours, that God would, of his infinite mercy grant, we may
both by our
PREACHING,
and
LIVING, SET FORTH
his holy word, and
SHEW
it accordingly.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
End of page 18. Instead of
but himself also,
read
but even himself.
End of page 23. Tho the first epistle of St. Peter must have been written to
a great body of people,
dispersed, as they were, over so many countries (consisting probably both of Jewish, and Gentile Christians; especially the latter, as appears from the body of the epistle) yet it certainly was not addressed to the
whole people
of these nations, as I have inadvertently affirmed. The argument however is little affected. If among the twelve apostles
one was a devil
—if Ananias, and Sapphira could prevaricate so vilely even in the face of the whole apostolic college—we can hardly suppose, there were no
nominal Christians
in so extensive, and dispersed a body.
Beginning of page 25. Instead of
transgressed,
read
neglected.
End of page 27. Instead of
look well to his motives,
read
look well, not only to his opinions; but to his motives also.
By the same Author, and sold by R. BLAMIRE, in the Strand.
LIVES of several REFORMERS.
LECTURES on the CATECHISM of the Church of England.
An ESSAY on PRINTS.
PICTURESQUE REMARKS on several Parts of England.