1 Cor. x. 15.
I speak as to wise men: judge ye what I say.
Though St. Paul said this to the Corinthians, on a particular occasion, in reference to a single argument he was then prosecuting, and possibly not without an intended sarcasm on those whom he here qualifies with the name of Wise men, yet the words themselves express the Apostle’s own constant practice; and what is more, they express the general spirit and genius of that Religion, which he was commissioned to teach.
For the Christian Religion, divine as it is in its origin, sublime in its precepts, and profound in its mysteries, yet condescends to apply itself to the rational faculties of mankind; and, secure in its own native truth and evidence, challenges the wise and learned to judge of its pretentions.
So that we may regard the declaration of the text, as a standing precept to the Ministers of the word, to speak as to wise men; and to the hearers of it, to use their best faculties, in judging of what they say.
These then shall be the two parts of my discourse upon it. Each will suggest some important reflexions to the persons respectively concerned; to US, who preach the word, and to YOU, who hear it.
I. The Religion of Jesus was designed for the instruction of all sorts and degrees of men. Nay, it is even alledged as one mark of its divinity by Jesus himself, that not only the rich and wise, but the poor and simple, have the Gospel preached unto them[9]. And from the different reception of it, at first, by these two sets of men, we may perhaps see which of them deserved it most. But be this as it will, the Christian Religion was destined for the use of all mankind. Its saving truths are to be made known to all: yet with some difference in the mode of teaching them, according to the capacities of those to whom they are addressed.
To plain and illiterate men, who have no prejudices to counteract the virtue of God’s word, and no pride of reason or science to question its authority, the true and proper way is, no doubt, to represent the great truths of the Gospel, simply and clearly, accompanied with its more general and obvious proofs, and enforced upon them with all the earnestness of exhortation. These proofs, and this exhortation, carry such light and force in them, as may be reasonably expected to have an effect upon all men: yet to the WISE, who are prompted by their curiosity, to habits of inquiry, to ask a reason of the hope that is in us[10], and who are qualified by their parts and studies to judge of such reason, we are instructed to address a more elaborate answer, or apology.
The question then will be, On what principles such Apology must be formed? A question the more important, because the apologies of all times have been too generally constructed on false and pernicious principles; on such as cannot support, but rather tend to weaken and disgrace, the very cause they would defend.
Such were the apologies, many times, of the ancient Christians, who would incorporate with the divine religion of Jesus the vain doctrines of the Gentile philosophy: and such have been too often the more modern apologies, which debase the word of God, and corrupt it, with the dreams of our presumptuous metaphysics.
Our Religion has suffered much in both these ways: not, that reason or philosophy of any kind, truly so called, can dis-serve the cause of a divine Religion; but that we reason and philosophize falsely, or perversely; that is, we apply falshood to truth; or, we misapply truth itself, in subjecting the incomprehensible mysteries of our faith to the scrutiny and minute discussion of our best reason.
From these miscarriages, we are admonished what to avoid: the example of the Apostle Paul, who spake as to wise men, may instruct us in the right way of prosecuting the defence of the Gospel.
From him, then, we learn to frame our answers and apologies to inquisitive men, on the great established truths of natural and revealed Religion; to assert the expediency of divine Revelation, from the acknowledged weakness and corruption of human nature, and from the moral attributes of the Deity; to illustrate the œconomy of God’s dispensations to mankind by arguments taken from that œconomy itself: to reason with reverence[11] on the nature of those dispensations, to shew what their general scope and purpose is, how perfect an agreement there is between them, and how divinely they are made to depend on each other.
In doing this, we shall find room for the exercise of our best and most approved reason: we shall look far ourselves, (and be able to let others) into the harmony of the divine councils, as they are set before us in the inspired volumes: and, though we may not penetrate all the depths and obscurities of those councils, yet, as in contemplating the WORKS of God, which we know but in part, we can demonstrate his eternal power and Godhead, so, in studying his WORD, we shall see enough of his unsearchable wisdom and goodness, to put to silence the ignorance of foolish, and to satisfy the inquiries of wise, men.
I say, to satisfy the inquiries of wise men: for wise men do not expect to have all difficulties in a divine system cleared up, and every minute question, which may be raised about it, answered (for this, God himself, the author and finisher of it, can only perform, and much less than this is abundantly sufficient for our purpose); but all they desire is to see the several parts of it so far cleared up, and made consistent with each other, and, upon the whole, to discover such evident marks of a superior wisdom, power, and goodness in the frame and texture of it, as may convince them that it is truly divine, and worthy of the Supreme Mind to whom we ascribe it.
When we speak thus as to wise men, we do all that wise men can require of us: if others be still unsatisfied, the fault is in themselves; they are curious, but not wise.
I lay the greater stress on this mode of defending the Christian Religion from itself, that is, by arguments taken from its own nature and essence, because it shortens the dispute with inquirers, and secures the honour of that Religion, we undertake to defend.
First, It shortens the dispute with Inquirers, by cutting off the consideration of all those objections which men raise out of their own imaginations. The defender of Christianity is not concerned to obviate every idle fancy, that floats in the head of a visionary objector. Men have not the making of their Religion, but must take it for such as the Scriptures represent it to be. And if we defend it on the footing of such representation, we do all that can be reasonably required of us. It is nothing to the purpose what men may imagine to themselves concerning the marks and characters of a divine Revelation: it is enough, that there are such marks and characters in the Religion of Jesus (whether more or fewer, whether the same or other, than we might previously have expected, is of no moment) as shew it, in all reasonable construction, to be divine. And thus our labour with Inquirers is much abridged, while all foreign and impertinent questions are rejected and laid aside.
Next, this mode of defence secures the honour of that religion, we undertake to support. For, if we fail in our endeavours to unfold some parts of the Christian system, we are but in the condition of those, who would experimentally investigate and clear up some difficulties in the system of nature. Want of care, or diligence, or sagacity, may subject both the Divine and the Philosopher to some mistakes: but either system is the same still, and lies open to the pains and attention of more successful inquirers. Nobody concludes that the system of nature is not divine, because this or that Philosopher has been led by hasty experiments to misconceive of it. And nobody should conclude otherwise of the Christian system, though the Divine should err as much in his scriptural comments and explications. Whereas, when we attempt to vindicate Christianity on principles not clearly contained in the word of God, we act like those who form physical theories on principles which have no foundation in fact. The consequence is, That not only the labour of each is lost, but the system itself, which each would recommend, being hastily taken for what it is unskilfully represented to be, is vilified and disgraced. For thus the Christian system has in fact been reviled by such as have seen, or would only see it, through the false medium of Popish or Calvinistical ideas: and thus the system of nature itself hath, it is said, been blasphemed by ONE[12], who judged of it from the intricacies of a certain astronomical hypothesis. The remedy for this evil, is, to solve scriptural difficulties by scriptural principles, and to account for natural appearances by experimental observations: and then, though the application of each may be mistaken, the system remains inviolate, and the honour both of God’s Word and Works is secured.
And let thus much suffice, at present, for the duty of him, who speaketh as to wise men. Much more indeed is required to the integrity, and still more to the success, of his defence. But he that speaketh, as the oracles of God, that is, who defends a divine Religion on its own divine principles, does that which is most essential to his office; and eminently discharges the part of a wise speaker, since he plans his defence in the best manner.
II. It now remains to consider the other part of the text, which challenges the wise men, to whom the Apostle spake, to JUDGE of what he said to them.
From the time, this challenge was given by the learned Apostle, there never have been wanting wise men, disposed and forward to accept it. And thus far, all was well: for they had a right to exercise this office of judging for themselves, if they were, indeed, capable of it. But have they considered, to what that capacity amounts? and that much more is required to make a good JUDGE, than a good SPEAKER?
Let us briefly examine then the pretentions of those, who have at all times been so ready to sit in judgement on the Advocates for Religion, by the known qualities of a capable Judge: which, I think, are Knowledge, Patience, Impartiality, Integrity, under which last name I include Courage.
1. The first requisite in a Judge, is a competent knowledge in the subject of which he judges, without which his other qualities, how respectable soever, are rendered useless. Nor is this knowledge, in the present case, inconsiderable. For, to say nothing of sacred and prophane Antiquity, to say nothing of the Sciences, and above all, the science of Ethics, in its largest extent, the Judge of religious controversy must be well versed, because the Advocate is required to be supremely so, in the great principles and doctrines of natural and revealed Religion. To decide on the merits of Christianity, without this knowledge, would be as absurd, as to decide on the merits of the English jurisprudence, without an acquaintance with the common law, and the Statute-book.
2. The next quality, required in a Judge, is Patience; or a deliberate unwearied attention to the arguments and representations of the Advocate, pleading before him. This attention is more especially expected, when the subject in debate is important, when it is, besides, intricate, and when the Advocate is able.
But these circumstances all concur, in the case before us. If the question concerning the truth and authority of Revelation be a cause of any moment at all, it is confessedly of the greatest: Again, if the scheme of Revelation be, as it pretends to be, divine, it must require the best application of our best faculties to comprehend it; and, lastly, as the ablest men of all times, of every profession and denomination, have appeared in its defence, such advocates may demand to be heared with all possible attention. For the Judge of such a cause, then, to confide in his own first thoughts, to listen negligently and impatiently, and to precipitate his determination, must be altogether unworthy the character he assumes.
3. It is expected of a Judge that he be strictly impartial; that he come to the trial of a cause without any previous bias on his mind, or any passionate and prevailing prejudices, in regard either to persons or things, which may indispose him to see the truth, or to respect it. And this turn of mind, so conducive to a right determination in all cases, is the more necessary here, where so many secret prejudices are apt, without great care, to steal in and corrupt the judgement.
4. The last quality, which men require in a Judge, is an inflexible Integrity: such as may infuse the virtue and the courage to give his judgement according to his impartial sense of things, without any regard to the consequences, in which it may involve him. This constancy of mind may be put to no easy trial in the present case; when the Judge’s determination may perhaps interest his whole future conduct; and when the censure, the scorn, and the displeasure of numbers, and possibly of those whom he has hitherto most considered and esteemed, may be incurred by such determination.
These are the great essential qualities which we look for in a Judge, and which cannot be dispensed with in a Judge of Religion. How far all, or any of these qualities are to be found in those, who take to themselves this office, I have neither time, nor inclination, to consider. For my purpose is not to disparage those who have exercised the right of judging for themselves in the great affair of Religion, nor to discourage any man from doing himself this justice: but simply to represent the difficulties, that lie in our way, and the qualifications we must possess, if we would judge a righteous judgement.
I leave it to yourselves, therefore, to apply these observations, as ye think fit. Ye will conclude, however, that to judge of the pretentions of your religion is no such easy task, as that any man, without parts, without knowledge, without industry, and without virtue, may presume to undertake it.
The sum of all I have said is, then, this. The Apostle, when he became an Advocate for the Gospel, condescended to speak, and it must therefore be more especially the duty of its uninspired advocates to speak as to wise men; that is, to employ in its defence the powers of reason and wisdom, of which they are capable. But it will be remembered, too, that much, nay more, is required of the Judges of it; and that they must approve themselves, not only wise, but, in every moral sense, excellent men, before they are qualified to pass a final judgement on what such Advocates have to say on so momentous a cause, as that of the Christian Religion.