Two sermons: The first, on comparing spiritual things with spiritual, preached at the primary visitation of the Lord Bishop of Winchester, at Southampton, July 15, 1788; ... the second, on the simplicity of the Gospel, preached ... September 13, 1780; ... By William Gilpin, ...

1 COR. ii. 13.

Which things we speak, not in the words, which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

WHEN St. Paul planted the gospel at Corinth, he found his designs chiefly opposed by two kinds of people.

The first were men of pleasure. Corinth lay commodiously for trade; and trade 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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;

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—

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.

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* 1.1 (I cannot give it a softer name, tho he was certainly an able, and a learned man), should be received so universally through christendom. The only advantage, which

this strange interruption of the sense of 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

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* 1.2.

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,

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

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

think, so directly leads. If their holy lives have attained the principal end of a better faith; they ought not surely to be branded with hard names, and considered among those, who deny Christ before men.

We are sometimes told they ought; because without this exalted faith in the divine nature of a Saviour, the mind cannot attain those elevated heights of love, which the gospel prescribes.

One should think so indeed: but before we pass these harsh censures on others, let any of us, who do hold that doctrine, ask our own carnal hearts, whether it purify them in this exalted manner?

At the same time, I think, we have good ground to censure those, who publicly raise scruples. Why cannot they be satisfied with keeping their opinions at home?

When a man holds a religious opinion with such conscientious firmness, that he gives up his temporal interests for it's sake; tho the opinion may be erroneous, the man is virtuous: his character respectable.—But if, instead of suffering manfully for his opinion, he should set it up as a banner, and call people together under it; he should then, I think, look well to his motives. There may be a touch of

latent vanity—there may be an over-weening of himself—the pride of being at the head of a sect—an oblique view to self-interest perhaps —or some other undue motive, which may insinuate itself, without well looking after, into his religious views. To propagate any error, is dangerous—but on disputable motives, it is doubly so. A man is no way put upon it: of course, he is answerable for the 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

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* 1.3. 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

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

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.

END OF THE FIRST SERMON.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Robert Stephens, who was printing a concordance, and a bible at the same time, and took this method of adapting the one to the other.
• * 1.2

  That this is the sense to be affixed to the fore-knowledge of God, is evident from the tenth verse, in which we are told, that the prophets prophesied of the grace that should come unto the Gentiles: and if, after so many breaks, we may be allowed to bring the seventeenth verse into the argument, we are there told plainly, that God without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man's work.
• * 1.3

  Dr. Priestley very justly observes, that,

  there is but little reason to expect, that any man, who has given the public his opinion on any subject of importance, will ever retract it.

  See his Disquisitions, page 206.