Volume 2 — SERMON XIII. PREACHED MAY 16, 1773.

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 church108, or by their own109 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 century110.

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 out111.

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.