Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of MY WORDS, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy Angels.
The text distinguishes between being ashamed of Christ, and being ashamed of his WORDS. And, though the two charges, in effect, run into one, yet I have found it convenient, in point of method, to observe that distinction. Considering the subject, in this double view, we shall see more clearly, what the crime is, which we are here cautioned to avoid, and when we are guilty of it.
I have already gone through the first division of the text, and shall now enter on the second. If we have not formally disowned, or, in effect, at least, been ashamed of CHRIST, that is, of his name, dignity, and person, and of the relation, which we bear to him, as our SAVIOUR and REDEEMER, yet have we not felt in ourselves, and evidenced to others, something of that disposition in regard to his WORDS, that is, considering him in the light of our LORD and MASTER?
Now, to do justice to this part of our subject, we must consider the words of Christ, first, in THEMSELVES, or as composing that form and manner of address, in which he thought fit to deliver himself to us: and, secondly, in the SUBJECT MATTER of them, that is, as comprehending both his doctrines and precepts, articles of faith, and rules of life, all that, as our heavenly Instructor, he requires us to believe, and, as our lawgiver, to put in practice. In both respects, I doubt, we shall, many of us, find that we have too much, and too often, been ashamed of Christ’s words.
I. Under the first consideration of the words themselves, that is, of his manner in addressing himself to us, let it be observed, that, though it be true, in several respects, that never man spake as this man, yet this commendation must not be extended to the language of his discourses, in which no peculiar art or elegance is affected. He condescended to speak, as any other Jew might have done, and as his Apostle afterwards did, plainly and clearly enough to convey his meaning, but not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, that is, of men cultivated and polished in the school of Greek or Roman learning. Hence, both in ancient and modern times, such as were, or pretended to be, so accomplished, have not unfrequently objected to the style of the Gospel, as rude and barbarous, and not composed with that beauty, which they have been taught to admire in the masters of fine writing. Now, though this pedantry might, perhaps, be excused in an old Pagan sophist, and is naturally enough assumed by a modern classical unbeliever, one is shocked to find it in professed Christians. And yet, I doubt, there are not a few of those, who are half ashamed of the Gospel, because not written in the best Greek, or according to the rules of the most approved rhetorick: I doubt, there are even those who might tell us, if they would (as a polite Italian philologist has done) that they read their bible but seldom, lest a familiarity with it should hurt their style; or perhaps abstain from reading it, altogether, because not fashioned according to their ideas of elegant composition.
It would be paying too much respect to this frivolous delicacy, to enter into a formal confutation of it. What I shall say to it is, briefly, this; first, that the style of scripture, though not classical, is by no means destitute of life and beauty: secondly, that, although it were, where the matter of it concerns us so much, it is childish to lay any great stress on the manner: that, further, the very objection turns to the honour of the Gospel, which was purposely so composed that the effect of it, in the conversion of the world, might be seen to flow from supernatural causes, and that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
To all which I might add, what perhaps is a secret to our polite objectors, that the rules of writing and speaking are more arbitrary than they are taken to be: that they refer to our customs and manners, and derive their merit from that reference, only; that, in different times and places and under different circumstances, the same manner may be good and bad; and that there is no universal archetype of perfect speech, existing in nature[283].
But these minute inquiries are not for this time and place. On whatever principles the style of scripture may be vindicated, or if it cannot be vindicated at all to a fastidious reader, still I affirm, that the taking offence at it is a species of that false shame, which the text condemns, and which deserves condemnation. When the word of God is held up to us in the great day, and the inquiry is, what attention we have paid to it, think how poor a subterfuge it will be from the shame, that will then overtake us, to reply, in the face of men and angels, that it was not the word of Cicero or Plato.
Having dismissed this trifling cavil, let us now see,
II. In the next place, in what respects it may be charged upon us that we have been ashamed of Christ’s words; that is, of their SUBJECT MATTER; considered in the double view of the doctrines, and precepts, contained in them.