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 pro⯑duces 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.

[8]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 teach⯑eth; but which the Holy Ghoſt teacheth; com⯑paring ſpiritual things with ſpiritual.

[9]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 teach⯑eth.—In the apoſtle's days indeed man's wiſ⯑dom had made only a little progreſs in the affairs of religion. We read of Hymeneus, Philetus, and a few others, who ſeemed deſi⯑rous 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 [10] our guard againſt man's wiſdom. Man's wiſ⯑dom 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 hiſ⯑tory of his opinions; and of theſe there is no end. Zeal, and indiſcretion; pride, and vani⯑ty; bad meanings, and good meanings, have all contributed to interpret what the Holy Ghoſt teacheth by the words of man's wiſdom. In⯑ſtead therefore of wandering in this wide wil⯑derneſs, let us fix our eyes on thoſe great land⯑marks, 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 con⯑ditions [11] 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 judg⯑ment—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 re⯑cords.—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 illuſtra⯑tion 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 inſtan⯑ces [12] 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 interpre⯑tation 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 immedi⯑ately [13] 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, want⯑ed 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 un⯑neceſſary; 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 [14] 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 under⯑ſtand 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 inſpi⯑ration recorded. If farther inſpiration be ne⯑ceſſary, a written record is more than is neceſ⯑ſary. If God gave the greater, why ſhould he give the leſs?—It ſeems therefore fully ſuffi⯑cient for the underſtanding of ſcripture, to take it into our hands; and, in the ſpirit of ſinceri⯑ty, 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 va⯑riety 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 pre⯑judices, and opinions, grafted on texts of [15] 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 ex⯑erciſed 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 en⯑deavours: in the other, the great ſcriptural rule of comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiri⯑tual.

The honeſt application of this rule, without doubt, would remove all the material difficul⯑ties 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 [16] 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 no⯑nothing 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 under⯑ſtand, 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 paſ⯑ſages 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 chriſ⯑tianity. 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 origi⯑nally 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 our⯑ſelves into new creatures.

[17]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 accom⯑panying 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 com⯑parative 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 com⯑pariſon 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 hu⯑manity and divinity of Chriſt, that one ſhould wonder, how any one, who believes the ſcrip⯑tures, 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 [18] muſt either therefore give up all idea of redemp⯑tion, 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 commiſſion⯑ing 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; com⯑municating [19] to them powers, unheard of before, for the propagation of his religion. In a word, when we take a comprehenſive view of the ſcrip⯑tures, and draw together the innumerable paſſa⯑ges, in which this great truth ſeems ſo plainly to be contained, it is a difficult matter to con⯑ceive 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 myſ⯑tery 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 paſ⯑ſages to the apoſtle's teſt of compariſon. But if any of them ſhould be thought more un⯑yielding; [20] 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 cer⯑tain quantity of ſome drug (a quantity which we know would prove fatal) with other ingre⯑dients—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— [21] 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 ſpiri⯑tual things with ſpiritual, will in all caſes direct us right. One part will generally ex⯑plain 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.

[22]In examining the works of man, as well as of God, we muſt judge from the whole, or our judgment will be erroneous. In archi⯑tecture, 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 ſcrip⯑tural inquiries: we take a doctrine from a text.

And here I cannot help lamenting the ſin⯑gular 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^* (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 [23] this ſtrange interruption of the ſenſe of ſcrip⯑ture 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 [24] bulk of theſe ſeveral nations were in a ſtate of ſalvation: at the ſame time it is perfectly evan⯑gelical, 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^*.

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 per⯑haps 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 ſcrip⯑ture, I undertook to diſcourſe on; and touched, [25] 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 no⯑body: 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 [26] 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 cer⯑tainly 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 im⯑portant 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 law⯑giver, and conſcientiouſly obey his laws; tho they may not have thoſe exalted ideas of his divine nature; to which our ſcriptural rule, I [27] 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 [28] 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 conſe⯑quence. 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 [29] 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 unſet⯑tle the minds of well-meaning people. It may lead them from things of more conſe⯑quence. 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^*. And as to any concern for the ſouls of men, in pure charity, one ſhould think, they will not alledge this. If we allow ſal⯑vation [30] 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 abun⯑dance 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 con⯑cern 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 puri⯑fying [31] 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 goſ⯑pel—on comparing ſpiritual things with ſpi⯑ritual, we muſt be convinced, that the great⯑eſt ſervice we can do to religion—and the beſt obedience we can ſhew to the goſpel, conſiſts in our uniting in a conſcientious en⯑deavour to draw a corrupt age to the prac⯑tice of godlineſs—keeping that which is com⯑mitted 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.

ONE of the firſt great objects of apoſto⯑lical 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 poſſeſ⯑ſion 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 [38] 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 ſimpli⯑city 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 there⯑fore [39] we may ſuppoſe, we are to gather a de⯑finition 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 diſ⯑tinctions 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 underſtand⯑ing and affections—he will feel a diſpoſition forming itſelf in his mind, free from the pre⯑judices of any ſect—yet indulgent to the opi⯑nions 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 prin⯑ciple; which raiſes him above the world— above it's hopes—above it's fears—and forms [40] 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 diſtinc⯑tions 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 ap⯑peared, 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 [41] 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 conti⯑nually 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 inven⯑tion, and rules of logical exactneſs, would from theſe pronounce boldly on it's inconſiſtences, and defects.

The ſimplicity of the goſpel might be power⯑fully oppoſed too by the ridicule of men of [42] 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 diſcoun⯑tenance.

All this was perfectly eaſy: for as chriſti⯑anity, and the world were at variance; argu⯑ments 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 [43] 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 ſimpli⯑city, 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 apoca⯑lypſe of St. John; tho the lofty figures em⯑ployed in that deſcription, leave the detail ob⯑ſcure.

But notwithſtanding this general progreſs of the goſpel, we may ſuppoſe it's light to be ſome⯑times [44] 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 our⯑ſelves, 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 re⯑ſtore 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 ac⯑knowledge [45] 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 ex⯑preſſed 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 man⯑ners 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 [46] 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 har⯑mony—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 poli⯑tical 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 al⯑ways 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 de⯑gree 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.

[47]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 ſim⯑plicity that is in Chriſt. The former, we muſt endeavour to preſerve from the corruptions of worldly wiſdom; the latter from the corrup⯑tions 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 [48] ſacred text, is, in fact, putting our own ſenſe upon the words of ſcripture: and when we conſider the very ſupine ignorance of the ge⯑nerality 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 me⯑mory, as, on a compariſon with the ſubject we are upon, may direct us to the true ſcrip⯑tural ſenſe.

The lawyer is obliged to ſtudy with at⯑tention a number of books, and to examine a variety of parallel caſes, before he can be qualified to act in his profeſſion. The phyſi⯑cian 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 pro⯑perly?

[49]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 dif⯑ferent from any mode now in uſe; and re⯑quires 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 be⯑ginning can hardly be diſtinguiſhed from the end—nor indeed what is aimed at, till the book is cloſed, juſt as the audience may ſup⯑poſe the ſubject will open.

[50]There is another thing alſo, which often occaſions our erring from the ſimplicity, which is in Chriſt. As the goſpel is a covenant be⯑tween 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 ſcep⯑tical 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 infu⯑ſions of worldly wiſdom, which have ſo often diſ⯑graced 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 [51] goſpel to make him happy both here, and hereafter—and other plain points, had gene⯑rally been the ſubjects of popular diſcourſes, we ſhould not have had now that groſs ig⯑norance in matters of religion, and that va⯑riety of ſtrange notions, and prejudices to com⯑bat; which we find amongſt the common people, on all religious ſubjects; but eſpeci⯑ally 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 ſim⯑plicity that is in Chriſt—not to dwell upon it's myſterious parts—not to enter into the in⯑quiries, how? and why?—nor to clog it with difficult, or refined queſtions; againſt which the apoſtle to Timothy, long ago, took abun⯑dant 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 [52] 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 ſcrip⯑ture, 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. Ob⯑ſcure 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 [53] experience ſhews us is more effectual among the vulgar^*.’

Tho this honeſt heathen had not a com⯑pleat 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— [54] not only in what the ſimplicity of our man⯑ners 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 diſ⯑courſes, either publicly, or privately, which may have the beſt effect upon the people. But ſimplicity of manners is a mode of preach⯑ing, which makes up many defects—it is adapted to every capacity—every body under⯑ſtands it; and it adds a dignity, and conſe⯑quence even to a diſcourſe of leſs weight. Tho the common people are no good reaſon⯑ers, 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 like⯑wiſe.

When the city of Antioch was diſpoſed to receive the goſpel; and the apoſtle Barnabas was ſent from Jeruſalem to promote the good [55] work, which was there carrying on, the peo⯑ple 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 mi⯑niſter 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 [56] 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 in⯑tirely diſclaims the world, ſhould endeavour at leaſt not to be much intangled in it. A moroſe character is not the alternative. Cheer⯑fulneſs 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 [57] 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 im⯑propriety (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 popu⯑lar 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.

[58]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 pro⯑bability of advantage will inſure.

After all, my brethren, it may be an eaſy matter, in an age of licence, to ſatisfy our⯑ſelves—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.

[59]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 eſtabliſh⯑ed 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, whe⯑ther his manners are more lax, becauſe thoſe wages are more certain?—The harveſt truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few, was a com⯑plaint 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 accumu⯑lated 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 ſim⯑plicity [60] 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 conſe⯑quence of looking back. Let us then cheer⯑fully 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.