2 Cor. x. 12.
We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves, with some that commend themselves: But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
I shall not inquire, who the persons were, to whom these words are applied. It is enough, for the use I intend to make of them, to observe, that they contain a censure of some persons, “who, conscious of certain advantages, and too much taken up in the contemplation of them, came to think better of themselves, and, consequently, worse of others, than they had reason to do; demonstrating, by this, their partiality (as the Apostle gently remonstrates), that they were not wise.”
But this censure admits a more extensive application. Measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, whole nations, and even ages, as well as individuals, are, sometimes, misled in the estimate they make of their own worth; and never more easily, or remarkably, than when the object of their partial fondness is their proficiency in knowledge, and, above all, in religious knowledge: for nothing flatters the pride of human nature so much, as an idea of superiority in the exercise of its best faculties, on the noblest subjects.
It would be easy to illustrate this observation by many examples, that have occurred in the history of mankind. But ONE, only, will sufficiently employ your thoughts at this time; and that one (to make it the more interesting and useful) shall be taken from OURSELVES.
The improvements, that have been made, for two or three centuries past, in almost every art and science, seem to authorize the present age to think with some respect, of itself. It accordingly exults in the idea of its own wisdom: and this country, in particular, which has contributed its full share to those improvements, may well be thought as forward, as any other, to pay itself this tribute of self-esteem. It would not be strange, if it appeared, on inquiry, That some presumption had, in either case, been indulged; and had even operated, according to the nature of presumption, to the prejudice of that claim, which, with so much confidence, has been set up. But I have now in view, only, one effect of this presumption; I mean, the complacency which many take in supposing, That the present age excels equally in sacred and secular learning; and, with regard to ourselves, That our theological knowledge as much surpasses that of our forefathers at the Reformation, as their knowledge did, the thick and gross ignorance of the monkish ages.
It concerns us, for more reasons than one, not to mistake in this matter. The direct way to decide upon it, would, no doubt, be, To compare the best modern writers, with the ablest of those among the Reformers, on the subject of religion. But, till ye have the leisure or curiosity to make this comparison for yourselves, ye will pay some regard, it may be, to the following considerations; which, at least, I think, make it questionable, whether our claims, in particular (for the inquiry shall, for the present, be confined to them), whether, I say, our pretensions to religious knowledge have not been carried too far. And,
1. One is tempted to ask, whether it be credible, that we of this age should have much advantage over our Reformers, in respect of religious knowledge, when both had an opportunity of deriving it from the same source? You will apprehend the meaning of this question, if you reflect, that our Reformers had not their religious system to fetch out of the dark rolls of ancient tradition, and much less to create, or fashion for themselves, out of their own proper stock of ingenuity and invention. Had such been their unhappy circumstances, there would be reason enough to presume that their system was defective. For the first attempts towards perfection in any art, or science, will not bear a comparison with those happier and more successful efforts, which a length of time and continued application enable men to make. But the case of those good men, we know, was wholly different. They had only to copy, or, rather, to inspect, a consummate model, made to their hands; I mean, the sacred scriptures, which lay open to them, as they do to us; and, being taken by them, as we understand they were, for their sole rule of faith, what should hinder them, when they read those scriptures, from seeing as distinctly, as we do at this day, what the Gospel-terms of salvation are, and what the erudition of a Christian man should be?
Did the primitive Christians, a plain people, and taken, for the most part, from the lowest ranks of life, did they understand their religion, when it was proposed to them, so as to have no doubt concerning its great and leading principles; nay, so as to be the standard of orthodoxy to all succeeding ages of the Church? and shall we think that the ablest Doctors at the Reformation, when they had once turned themselves to the study of the sacred volumes, could be at a loss about the contents of them?
“Yes, it will, perhaps, be said; the primitive Christians had the advantage of reading the scriptures in the languages in which they were composed, or of hearing them explained, at least, by learned and well-instructed teachers: whereas, at the Reformation, those languages were understood by few, or none; and consequently, in those days, there could be no persons sufficiently skilled in the sacred scriptures to ascertain their true meaning.”
But to this charge of ignorance you will easily reply, by asking,
2. In the next place, whether it can consist with a known fact, namely, That the revival of letters had preceded the Reformation every-where, especially in England; and that the excellent persons who took the lead in that work, were all of them, competently, and, some of them, deeply, skilled in the learned languages?
Indeed, in the nature of the thing, it is scarce possible, that the Reformers should be so little versed, as the objection supposes, in the original scriptures. For, whether the new learning as it was called, had, or had not, been cultivated, before the Reformation began, we may be sure it would then be cultivated with the utmost assiduity; both, because it was a new learning, that is, because the charms of novelty would naturally engage many in the study of it; and, because no step could be taken in the Reformation, without some proficiency in that learning. Now, if you consider, of what the human mind is capable, when pushed on by two such active principles, as learned curiosity, and religious zeal, you will conclude with yourselves, even without recurring to positive testimony, that the Reformers must needs have made an acquaintance with the authentic text: such an acquaintance, as would let them into a clear apprehension, at least, of those doctrines, which are the elementary, as we may say, or necessary ingredients in the constitution of a truly Christian Church.
If you hesitate about coming to this conclusion, the reason, I suppose, is, that you consider the Reformers as just then emerging from the darkness of Popery, and therefore so far blinded by the prejudices of that church[108], or by their own[109] prejudices against it, as not to see distinctly, and at once, the true sense of Scripture, though they might be competently skilled in the learned languages. And, possibly, there is some truth, as well as plausibility, in this suggestion, as applied to the case of the foreign Protestant Churches, which were formed with too much haste, and in a time of too much heat, to be quite free from all such exceptions. But, then, you will call to mind,
3. Thirdly, that the Reformation was not carried on with us in a precipitate tumultuary manner, as it was, for the most part, on the Continent. On the other hand, it advanced, under the eye of the magistrate, by slow degrees; nay, it was, more than once, checked and kept back by him. Hence it came to pass, that there was time allowed for taking the full benefit of all discoveries, made abroad; for studying the chief points of controversy, with care; and for getting rid of such mistakes, as might arise from a hasty or passionate interpretation of holy Scripture. In short, you will reflect, that, between the first contentions in Germany; on the account of Religion, and the first establishment of it in the Church of England, under Elizabeth, there was the space of near half a century: a space, sufficient, you will think (especially, if the activity of those times be considered) to admit all the improvements of learning, that were necessary to those who had the charge of conducting the Reformation; and all the deliberate circumspection, with which it was fit that so great a work should be finally completed.
If it be said, “that the Reformers are convicted of ignorance in one important part of scriptural knowledge, that of Toleration, and that therefore, possibly, they have erred in others;” I reply, that this subject had never been understood, from the first establishment of Christianity down to the æra of the Reformation; and that the mistakes about it had, chiefly, arisen, not from a want of seeing what the Scriptures had revealed, but of knowing how to reconcile the New Testament to the Old. If we are, now, able to do this, it is well. In the mean time, let it be acknowledged, that no peculiar charge of ignorance can be brought against the Reformers for misapprehending a subject, not only difficult in itself, but perplexed with endless prejudices, and not yet, as appears, quite disentangled of them. After all, this doctrine of intolerance, though it unhappily affected the personal conduct of our Reformers, has no place in the Liturgy and Articles of our Church.
Still, perhaps, the main point, on which this question, concerning the comparative skill of the two periods, in matters of religion, turns, is yet untouched; which is, that the amazing progress, confessedly made, since the æra of the Reformation, in all true Philosophy, must have contributed very largely to the increase of religious knowledge; and that so much light of science, as we now enjoy, must have served to give us a clearer insight, than our benighted ancestors had, into the revealed doctrines of Christianity.
But to this so flattering, and, at first view, not improbable, assumption, it may be replied,
4. In the last place, That the doctrines in question, being purely Christian, that is, such as it pleased God to reveal to mankind concerning his eternal purpose in Christ Jesus,—that the doctrines, I say, having this original, and being of this nature, have, possibly, no communication with the discoveries of later times: that, of the divine councils, on such a subject, we could have known nothing, if the Revelation had been silent; and that all we do know, when it speaks clearest, is only what those councils are, not on what grounds of reason they stand; whether it be, that such knowledge is unattainable by our faculties, or that it was seen to be improper for our situation: that, to say the least, all the efforts of the ablest men to explain the peculiar fundamental doctrines of our religion, on the principles of our philosophy, have not hitherto been so successful, as to make it certain that these doctrines are indeed cognisable by human reason: that possibly, therefore, those doctrines are the objects of faith, simply, and not of knowledge; in other words, that they are no clearer to us at this day, than they were to those plainer men, who lived in the sixteenth century[110].
And now, if we recollect the substance of what has been said—That our Reformers had only to consult the Scriptures for a just idea of the Christian Religion—that they were likely enough to understand those Scriptures, being invited, or rather impelled, to the study of them, by the most active principles of human nature—that they could not but understand those Scriptures in all the more important points of doctrine, which they had so much time and occasion to consider, and which there wanted no more than a common skill in the language of Scripture to understand—and that, lastly, they could not have understood those points better, than they did, even with all our real or fancied skill in philosophy, because, in truth, philosophy is not applicable to those points, being matters of pure Revelation, and not susceptible of any additional clearness from the exertion of our best faculties, however improved:—If these things, I say, are put together, we shall conceive it possible for our Reformers to have acquired such a knowledge, at least, of their religion, as not to deserve that utter contempt, with which, on a comparison with ourselves, they are, sometimes, treated.
But a single FACT will, perhaps, speak more conviction to you, than all these general presumptive reasonings. When the question is, therefore, concerning the degree of religious knowledge, which such men as Cranmer and Ridley possessed, let it be remembered, “That Erasmus (who lived and died before the English Reformation had made any considerable progress, and the benefit of all whose light and knowledge those Reformers, therefore, had) that this learned man, I say, had, in those days, explained himself as reasonably, on almost every great topic of revealed religion, as any writer has since done; or is now able to do.”
This fact, however, does not imply, that the age of the Reformation was equally enlightened with the present; or that the clearer light, we enjoy, is of no service to religion. Our improved Criticism has been of use in ascertaining the authority, and, sometimes, in clearing the smaller difficulties, of the sacred text; and our improved Philosophy has enabled many great men to set the evidences of revealed religion, in a juster and stronger light: but, with the doctrines themselves, our improvements, of whatever kind, have no concern. Be our proficiency in human science what it may, those doctrines are the same still. Reason, under any degree of cultivation, may if we please to misapply it, perplex and corrupt our faith; but will never be able to see to the bottom of those judgments, which are unsearchable, nor to clear up those ways, which are past finding out[111].
To conclude: I am not, now, making the panegyric of those venerable men, to whom we are indebted for our religious establishment. They were our inferiors, if you will, in many respects. But, if, measuring ourselves by ourselves, and comparing ourselves among ourselves, we overlook their real abilities and qualifications; if we pronounce them ignorant of good letters, because they lived in an age, which we have learned to call barbarous; and ignorant of the Christian religion, because they were not practised in our philosophy; we, probably, do THEM great injustice, and take, it may be, not the best method of doing honour to OURSELVES.
SERMON XIV.
PREACHED APRIL 27, 1766.
St. Mark, iv. 24.
Take heed what ye hear.
Or, as the equivalent phrase is in
St. Luke, viii. 18.
Take heed HOW ye hear.
Faith, says the Apostle, cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God[112]. The assertion was strictly true in the early days of the Gospel, before books were yet written and spread abroad for the edification of the Church. The inlet of faith was, then, the ear: through that organ only was conveyed, from the tongue of the preacher, the word of God. But the case is much the same at all times; even now, when books are enough multiplied, and perhaps more than enough, in the Christian world. For, it having pleased God, that a standing ministry should be kept up for the instruction of mankind in the faith, and a woe being denounced against such, as have received this commission, and yet preach not the Gospel[113], the sole way by which faith cometh to most men, and the principal, by which it cometh to almost all, is still that of hearing. It is still by the word preached, that men, in general, come to the faith of Christ, and are confirmed in the profession of it.
Our Lord, then, foreseeing how much would depend on this faculty of hearing, and finding by experience how liable it was to be abused, thought fit to give his Disciples a particular, and what may almost seem a new, precept, for their conduct in this respect. The ancient masters of rhetoric, and of morals, had frequently warned their scholars to take heed what they speak: but our Divine Master carries his attention still farther; and while his ministers are required, to speak, as the oracles of God, the people are very properly instructed by him, to take heed what they hear.
Now, that this admonition may have its full effect, it will be proper to explain the reasons, on which it is founded; to lay before you the several considerations which shew of what infinite concern it is to those, who hear the word, to be attentive in hearing.
And it naturally occurs, as the
I. First reason for this attention, that what is spoken, is delivered to them, as the word of God.
When a person in high place and authority thinks fit to honour us with a message, though it be in a matter of no great importance, with what submission is it received! How diligently do we listen to it! How circumspectly is every sentence, and even syllable, weighed! We do not stand to make exceptions to the messenger, who may have nothing in his own person to command our respect; we do not much consider the grace with which he delivers his message; we are not curious to observe in what choice or elegant terms it is expressed. We are only concerned to know, that the message has been faithfully related, and then a due regard is immediately paid to it. And shall God speak to us by the mouth of his ministers, in terms which himself dictates, and which we may verify, if we please, by comparing them with his own written word,—shall, I say, the God of Heaven thus address himself to us, and we not take heed what and how we hear?
Or, suppose the opinion of a man learned in any secular profession is reported to us, on a point which falls within his province, and of which it concerns us to form a right apprehension, Is not such opinion received with respect by us, and studied with care?
And shall our Divine Master be negligently heared, when he condescends to instruct us in the way of life and salvation, a subject, of all others, the most interesting to us; a subject, which he alone perfectly understands, and concerning which he will not and cannot mislead us?
Still further, besides the authority of the divine word, there is something in the nature of it, which deserves, and, if we be not wholly insensible, must command our attention.
For shall a little superficial rhetorick be listened to with regard, perhaps with admiration? And shall not the heart-felt truths of the Gospel warm and affect us? Shall a few spiritless periods, ranged in measure, and coloured with art, mere sound and paint, throw an assembly, sometimes, into joy or grief, or transport it with indignation? And can we lend a careless ear to the word of God, which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart[114]?
Such is the attention due to the word of God, when acknowledged under that character. But
II. A SECOND reason for hearing with caution, is, that the hearers are required to judge for themselves whether what is delivered to them be, indeed, the word of God. Without this care, impostures may be endless, and the effect of them fatal.
When we give up ourselves with an implicit trust to others in mere temporal concerns, the mischief, although considerable, may yet be checked by experience; or, at most, as it respects this life only, is not conclusive and irreparable: but in matters of religion, if we accept that as the word of God, and act upon it, which has no higher authority than the word of fallible and presumptuous men, we may be led into all the visions of fanaticism or superstition, and into all the crimes which so naturally spring from both, to the loss of our future, as well as present happiness.
It pleased God, therefore, from the time that miracles ceased to be the credentials of his ministers in the Christian Church, to secure the faithful from these dangers by the guidance of the written Word; in which, besides special rules there given for the trial of the spirits, whether they are of God, such general principles are delivered as may direct our judgment. And by the help of these, interpreted by the tenor of that word, and the analogy of faith, we may be secured from all deception or surprize.
It is true, all men cannot apply these rules and principles, or not with full knowledge and effect. Woe, therefore, be to him who abuses the incapacity of such hearers, by obtruding on their easy belief his own fancies, as the doctrines of God! But to the abler hearers of the word, to all, indeed, who are competently instructed in their Religion, the task is not difficult to avoid gross and dangerous delusions, to determine for themselves whether the doctrine be of God, or not. This task, I say, is not difficult; yet it implies care and circumspection; and the necessity of discharging it must be allowed a good argument for taking heed what we hear.
III. A further reason for this diligence in hearing is, That the hearers are expected and required to profit by the word spoken.
The word of wisdom and of knowledge is given to every man to profit withal[115]. It is not a curious problem, a fine lecture, a trial of wit, or play of ingenuity, calculated to entertain us for the time, and to be laid aside and forgotten by us again, when the occasion is over. The ministry of the word is of another kind, and destined to higher purposes. It is an instrument of reproof, of exhortation, of instruction in righteousness. The sword of the spirit is put into the hands of men for no ends of pageantry and amusement. The minister of God bears it not in vain. He is entrusted with it to smite the hearts of the wicked, to pierce through the souls of unrighteous men, and to flash conviction in the face of unbelievers. It is an ordinance of God, by which he would humble the proud, and convert the obstinate; strengthen the weak, and confirm the wise, hearer. Whatever our condition, it is to be corrected or improved by the word of God; whatever our necessities, they are to be relieved by it. But every gift of the spirit, as well as faith, cometh by hearing: and that not in the instant, but by degrees; for the Gospel does not illuminate and sanctify men at once; but by successive improvements, according to the care with which we listen to its admonitions, and the impression they make upon us. Hence it concerns the hearer, that nothing be lost, and that the good seed be not committed to the ground in vain. One truth received, prepares the mind to entertain a second; that, a third; and so on, till we become perfect in the knowledge of the faith. Our moral advances are made in the same manner: one good resolution begets another, which again produces succeeding ones, till, through several intervening states, we arrive, or almost arrive, at perfect obedience.
And this consideration, indeed, seems to have been immediately present to our Lord, when he delivered the admonition in the text. For so he comments upon, and enforces his own words—Take heed what ye hear: [for] with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you, and TO YOU THAT HEAR, SHALL MORE BE GIVEN: that is, plainly and certainly, your proficiency in faith and virtue will depend upon the degree of attention ye pay to my word, and shall be proportioned to it; therefore it cannot be too strict and earnest. Nay, our Lord goes farther, and in his jealousy, as it were, for the honour of the word spoken, threatens the listless hearer, that he should not only not advance in religious qualifications, but that he should even lose those, which he already possessed. For he that hath, to him shall be given: AND HE THAT HATH NOT, FROM HIM SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY EVEN THAT HE HATH. And this dispensation of Providence, as severe as it may seem, is, I suppose, confirmed by too certain experience, and is analogous to the rest of God’s moral government.
It is no slight matter then, how we hear. And let no idle prejudices prevent or mislead us. The preacher of the Gospel may, on various pretences, be unacceptable to us. Still, the Gospel itself is not his, but God’s; to which no circumstance should indispose us. Nay, in spite of this indisposition, the preacher, if we resolve to hear, may profit us. For it is not, I conceive, without example, that such as come to amuse themselves with a stated discourse, or perhaps to censure the discourser, have found their hearts touched by the quickening power of the word, and have returned with serious thoughts and better resolutions.
This, I say, is not too much to expect from the Gospel of Christ, and the grace which attends it, since we find it recorded of a Pagan moralist, that, when a young reveller came into his school, flushed with wine, and (as the custom of such was) crowned with flowers, and therefore in no disposition, we may presume, to profit by his instructions; the philosopher, however, chose his topics so well, and pressed them on his gay disciple with such effect, as to send him away in a graver mood, and without his garland[116]. But,
IV. The last and most important reason of all why we should give an attentive ear to the word of God, is, That we shall finally be judged by it.
If the Gospel had only proposed to instruct us in the knowledge of God, that so we might speculate more ably on divine subjects; or, at most, refer the knowledge we acquire to present use; though it could not be denied that such purpose was an important one, yet, if it went no further, we might, if we could allow ourselves in such imprudence, make light of this, as we do of so many other kinds of instruction. We should be ignorant, indeed, and unaccomplished in a very sublime science; but so we are of many others, and yet are contented to remain in that ignorance. We might conduct ourselves foolishly and perversely, and might suffer much inconvenience, and even misery, for want of acting on the principles of this science; but so we do, in many other instances, for want of acting on the maxims of art and prudence in the management of our common concerns, and yet we make a shift to satisfy ourselves with our condition. But if the Gospel follow us into another world; if this immortal volume must be laid open in the presence of men and angels, and our eternal doom pronounced out of it, though we would not obey, or so much as listen to its commands, when they were so earnestly, so repeatedly, in this life pressed upon us; if such be the effect of not hearing, how shall we excuse our indifference in this respect, or what can support us under the consciousness of it?
Hear then the awful sentence of Christ himself, denounced in that Gospel—He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; THE WORD that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day[117].
Go now, ye careless hearers, ye despisers of the WORD, and justify to yourselves, if ye can, your neglect and scorn of it!
When our Lord himself taught in the streets of Jerusalem, many a supercilious Pharisee, we may suppose, passed by, without so much as stopping to hear what this divine teacher had to say to them: others, if they gave attention to his words, were only gratifying an idle, perhaps a malignant curiosity; they sought occasion from what he said to intrap him in his discourse, to accuse him to the rulers, or to vilify him in the eyes of the people. Again: when this same doctrine was taught by the Apostle Paul in another proud city, as proud of its philosophic schools, as Jerusalem was of its temple, many a contemptuous sophist, we may believe, disdained to listen, at all to the foolishness of preaching; and of those few who did, some, we know, mocked, while others negligently asked their companions, What would this babbler say? But how will both these be astonished in the last day to find themselves judged by that word which they neglected, or contemned; by that word, which they would not hear, though it was brought home to their doors, or which they rejected with scorn, when they did hear it!
Nor think, because neither Jesus nor Paul hath preached in person to us, that therefore our case is much different. Jesus and Paul still speak in the ministers of the word: or, what if the speakers be widely different, the word is the same: this treasure we still have, though in earthen vessels[118]. Nay, in one respect, our guilt exceeds theirs. The Pharisees and Philosophers were, alike, ignorant and unbelieving. We profess to know, and to believe.
Let US, then, take heed what we hear; lest our knowledge and belief add terrors to that day, when the neglected word shall sit in judgment upon us.