Sermon 15. Self-Contemplation 
"Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our
faith." Hebrews xii. 2.
{163} [Note] SURELY it is our duty ever
to look off ourselves, and to look unto Jesus, that is, to shun the
contemplation of our own feelings, emotions, frame and state of mind, as
if that were the main business of religion, and to leave these mainly to
be secured in their fruits. Some remarks were made yesterday upon this
"more excellent" and Scriptural way of conducting ourselves,
as it has ever been received in the Church; now let us consider the
merits of the rule for holy living, which the fashion of this day would
substitute for it.
Instead of looking off to Jesus, and thinking little of ourselves, it
is at present thought necessary, among the mixed multitude of
religionists, to examine the heart with a view of ascertaining whether
it is in a spiritual state or no. A spiritual frame of mind is
considered to be one in which the heinousness of sin is perceived, our
utter worthlessness, the impossibility of our saving {164} ourselves, the
necessity of some Saviour, the sufficiency of our Lord Jesus Christ to
be that Saviour, the unbounded riches of His love, the excellence and
glory of His work of Atonement, the freeness and fulness of His grace,
the high privilege of communion with Him in prayer, and the
desirableness of walking with Him in all holy and loving obedience; all
of them solemn truths, too solemn to be lightly mentioned, but our
hearty reception of which is scarcely ascertainable by a direct
inspection of our feelings. Moreover, if one doctrine must be selected
above the rest as containing the essence of the truths, which (according
to this system) are thus vividly understood by the spiritual Christian,
it is that of the necessity of renouncing our own righteousness for the
righteousness provided by our Lord and Saviour; which is considered, not
as an elementary and simple principle (as it really is), but as rarely
and hardly acknowledged by any man, especially repugnant to a certain
(so-called) pride of heart, which is supposed to run through the whole
race of Adam, and to lead every man instinctively to insist even before
God on the proper merit of his good deeds; so that, to trust in Christ,
is not merely the work of the Holy Spirit (as all good in our souls is),
but is the especial and critical event which marks a man, as issuing
from darkness, and sealed unto the privileges and inheritance of the
sons of God. In other words, the doctrine of Justification by Faith is
accounted to be the one cardinal point of the Gospel; and it is in vain
to admit it readily as a clear Scripture truth (which it is), and to
attempt to go on unto perfection: the very wish to pass forward is
interpreted into a {165} wish to pass over it, and the test of believing it at
all, is in fact to insist upon no doctrine but it. And this peculiar
mode of inculcating that great doctrine of the Gospel is a proof (if
proof were wanting) that the persons who adopt it are not solicitous
even about it on its own score merely, considered as (what is
called) a dogma, but as ascertaining and securing (as they hope) a
certain state of heart. For, not content with the simple admission of it
on the part of another, they proceed to divide faith into its kinds,
living and dead; and to urge against him, that the Truth may be held in
a carnal and unrenewed mind, and that men may speak without real
feelings and convictions. Thus it is clear they do not contend for the
doctrine of Justification as a truth external to the mind, or article of
faith, any more than for the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand,
since they use the same language about dead and living faith, however
exemplary the life and conduct be of the individual under their review,
they as plainly show that neither are the fruits of righteousness in
their system an evidence of spiritual-mindedness, but that a something
is to be sought for in the frame of mind itself. All this is not stated
at present by way of objection, but in order to settle accurately what
they mean to maintain. So now we have the two views of doctrine clearly
before us:—the ancient and universal teaching of the Church, which
insists on the Objects and fruits of faith, and considers the spiritual
character of that faith itself sufficiently secured, if these are as
they should be; and the method, now in esteem, of attempting instead to
{166} secure directly and primarily that "mind of the Spirit," which
may savingly receive the truths, and fulfil the obedience of the Gospel.
That such a spiritual temper is indispensable, is agreed on all hands.
The simple question is, whether it is formed by the Holy Spirit
immediately acting upon our minds, or, on the other hand, by our own
particular acts (whether of faith or obedience), prompted, guided, and
prospered by Him; whether it is ascertainable otherwise than by its
fruits; whether such frames of mind as are directly ascertainable
and profess to be spiritual, are not rather a delusion, a mere
excitement, capricious feeling, fanatic fancy, and the like. So much
then by way of explanation.
1. Now, in the first place, this modern system certainly does
disparage the revealed doctrines of the Gospel, however its more
moderate advocates may shrink from admitting it. Considering a certain
state of heart to be the main thing to be aimed at, they avowedly make
the "truth as it is in Jesus," the definite Creed of the
Church, secondary in their teaching and profession. They will defend
themselves indeed from the appearance of undervaluing it, by maintaining
that the existence of right religious affections is a security for sound
views of doctrine. And this is abstractedly true;—but not true in the
use they make of it: for they unhappily conceive that they can ascertain
in each other the presence of these affections; and when they find men
possessed of them (as they conceive), yet not altogether orthodox in
their belief, then they relax a little, and argue that an admission of
(what they call) the strict and technical niceties of {167} doctrine, whether
about the Consubstantiality of the Son or the Hypostatic Union, is
scarcely part of the definition of a spiritual believer. In order to
support this position, they lay it down as self-evident, that the main
purpose of revealed doctrine is to affect the heart,—that that which
does not seem to affect it does not affect it,—that what does not
affect it, is unnecessary,—and that the circumstance that this or that
person's heart seems rightly affected, is a sufficient warrant that such
Articles as he may happen to reject, may safely be universally rejected,
or at least are only accidentally important. Such principles, when once
become familiar to the mind, induce a certain disproportionate attention
to the doctrines connected with the work of Christ, in comparison of
those which relate to His Person, from their more immediately
interesting and exciting character; and carry on the more speculative
and philosophical class to view the doctrines of Atonement and
Sanctification as the essence of the Gospel, and to advocate them in the
place of those "Heavenly Things" altogether, which, as
theologically expressed, they have already assailed; and of which they
now openly complain as mysteries for bondsmen, not Gospel consolations.
The last and most miserable stage of this false wisdom is, to deny that
in matters of doctrine there is any one sense of Scripture such, that it
is true and all others false; to make the Gospel of Truth (so far) a
revelation of words and a dead letter; to consider that inspiration
speaks merely of divine operations, not of Persons; and that that is
truth to each, which each man thinks to be true, so that one man may say
that {168} Christ is God, another deny His pre-existence, yet each have
received the Truth according to the peculiar constitution of his own
mind, the Scripture doctrine having no real independent substantive
meaning. Thus the system under consideration tends legitimately to
obliterate the great Objects brought to light in the Gospel, and to
darken what I called yesterday the eye of faith,—to throw us back into
the vagueness of Heathenism, when men only felt after the Divine
Presence, and thus to frustrate the design of Christ's Incarnation, so
far as it is a manifestation of the Unseen Creator.
2. On the other hand, the necessity of obedience in order to
salvation does not suffer less from the upholders of this modern system
than the articles of the Creed. They argue, and truly, that if faith is
living, works must follow; but mistaking a following in order of
conception for a following in order of time, they conclude
that faith ever comes first, and works afterwards; and therefore, that
faith must first be secured, and that, by some means in which works have
no share. Thus, instead of viewing works as the concomitant development
and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result
of faith, they lay all the stress upon the direct creation, in their
minds, of faith and spiritual-mindedness, which they consider to consist
in certain emotions and desires, because they can form abstractedly no
better or truer notion of those qualities. Then, instead of being
"careful to maintain good works," they proceed to take it for
granted, that since they have attained faith (as they consider), works
will follow without their trouble as a matter of course. Thus the {169} wise
are taken in their own craftiness; they attempt to reason, and are
overcome by sophisms. Had they kept to the Inspired Record, instead of
reasoning, their way would have been clear; and, considering the serious
exhortations to keeping God's commandments, with which all Scripture
abounds, from Genesis to the Apocalypse, is it not a very grave
question, which the most charitable among Churchmen must put to himself,
whether these random expounders of the Blessed Gospel are not risking a
participation in the woe denounced against those who preach any other
doctrine besides that delivered unto us, or who "take away from the
words of the Book" of revealed Truth?
3. But still more evidently do they fall into this last imputation,
when we consider how they are obliged to treat the Sacred Volume
altogether, in order to support the system they have adopted. Is it too
much to say that, instead of attempting to harmonize Scripture with
Scripture, much less referring to Antiquity to enable them to do so,
they either drop altogether, or explain away, whole portions of the
Bible, and those most sacred ones? How does the authority of the Psalms
stand with their opinions, except at best by a forced figurative
interpretation? And our Lord's discourses in the Gospels, especially the
Sermon on the Mount, are they not virtually considered as chiefly
important to the persons immediately addressed, and of inferior
instructiveness to us now that the Spirit (as it is profanely said) is
come? In short, is not the rich and varied Revelation of our merciful
Lord practically reduced to a few chapters of St. Paul's Epistles,
whether rightly {170} (as they maintain) or (as we should say) perversely
understood? If then the Romanists have added to the Word of God, is it
not undeniable that there is a school of religionists among us who have
taken from it?
4. I would remark, that the immediate tendency of these opinions is
to undervalue ordinances as well as doctrines. The same argument
evidently applies; for, if the renewed state of heart is (as it is
supposed) attained, what matter whether Sacraments have or have not been
administered? The notion of invisible grace and invisible privileges is,
on this supposition, altogether superseded; that of communion with
Christ is limited to the mere exercise of the affections in prayer and
meditation,—to sensible effects; and he who considers he has already
gained this one essential gift of grace (as he calls it), may plausibly
inquire, after the fashion of the day, why he need wait upon ordinances
which he has anticipated in his religious attainments,—which are but
means to an end, which he has not to seek, even if they be not
outward forms altogether,—and whether Christ will not accept at the
last day all who believe, without inquiring if they were members of the
Church, or were confirmed, or were baptized, or received the blessing of
mere men who are "earthen vessels."
5. The foregoing remarks go to show the utterly unevangelical
character of the system in question; unevangelic in the full sense of
the word, whether by the Gospel be meant the inspired document of it, or
the doctrines brought to light through it, or the Sacramental
Institutions which are the gift of it, or the {171} theology which interprets
it, or the Covenant which is the basis of it. A few words shall now be
added, to show the inherent mischief of the system as such; which I
conceive to lie in its necessarily involving a continual
self-contemplation and reference to self, in all departments of conduct.
He who aims at attaining sound doctrine or right practice, more or less
looks out of himself; whereas, in labouring after a certain frame of
mind, there is an habitual reflex action of the mind upon itself. That
this is really involved in the modern system, is evident from the very
doctrine principally insisted on by it; for, as if it were not enough
for a man to look up simply to Christ for salvation, it is declared to
be necessary that he should be able to recognise this in himself, that
he should define his own state of mind, confess he is justified by faith
alone, and explain what is meant by that confession. Now, the truest
obedience is indisputably that which is done from love of God, without
narrowly measuring the magnitude or nature of the sacrifice involved in
it. He who has learned to give names to his thoughts and deeds, to
appraise them as if for the market, to attach to each its due measure of
commendation or usefulness, will soon involuntarily corrupt his motives
by pride or selfishness. A sort of self-approbation will insinuate
itself into his mind: so subtle as not at once to be recognised by
himself,—an habitual quiet self-esteem, leading him to prefer his own
views to those of others, and a secret, if not avowed persuasion, that
he is in a different state from the generality of those around him. This
is an incidental, {172} though of course not a necessary evil of religious
journals; nay, of such compositions as Ministerial duties involve. They
lead those who write them, in some respect or other, to a contemplation
of self. Moreover, as to religious journals, useful as they often are,
at the same time I believe persons find great difficulty, while
recording their feelings, in banishing the thought that one day these
good feelings will be known to the world, and are thus insensibly led to
modify and prepare their language as if for a representation. Seldom
indeed is any one in the practice of contemplating his better
thoughts or doings without proceeding to display them to others; and
hence it is that it is so easy to discover a conceited man. When this is
encouraged in the sacred province of religion, it produces a certain
unnatural solemnity of manner, arising from a wish to be, nay, to appear
spiritual, which is at once very painful to beholders, and surely quite
at variance with our Saviour's rule of anointing our head and washing
our face, even when we are most self-abased in heart. Another mischief
arising from this self-contemplation is the peculiar kind of selfishness
(if I may use so harsh a term) which it will be found to foster. They
who make self instead of their Maker the great object of their
contemplation will naturally exalt themselves. Without denying that the
glory of God is the great end to which all things are to be referred,
they will be led to connect indissolubly His glory with their own
certainty of salvation; and this partly accounts for its being so common
to find rigid predestinarian views, and the exclusive {173} maintenance of
justification by Faith in the same persons. And for the same reason, the
Scripture doctrines relative to the Church and its offices will be
unpalatable to such persons; no one thing being so irreconcileable with
another, as the system which makes a man's thoughts centre in himself,
with that which directs them to a fountain of grace and truth, on which
God has made him dependent.
And as self-confidence and spiritual pride are the legitimate results
of these opinions in one set of persons, so in another they lead to a
feverish anxiety about their religious state and prospects, and fears
lest they are under the reprobation of their All-merciful Saviour. It
need scarcely be said that a contemplation of self is a frequent
attendant, and a frequent precursor of a deranged state of the mental
powers.
To conclude. It must not be supposed from the foregoing remarks that
I am imputing all the consequences enumerated to every one who holds the
main doctrine from which they legitimately follow. Many men zealously
maintain principles which they never follow out in their own minds, or
after a time silently discard, except as far as words go, but which are
sure to receive a full development in the history of any school or party
of men which adopts them. Considered thus, as the characteristics of a
school, the principles in question are doubtless antichristian; for they
destroy all positive doctrine, all ordinances, all good works; they
foster pride, invite hypocrisy, discourage the weak, and deceive most
fatally, while they profess to be the especial antidotes to
self-deception. We have seen {174} these effects of them two centuries since
in the history of the English Branch of the Church; for what we know, a
more fearful triumph is still in store for them. But, however that may
be, let not the watchmen of Jerusalem fail to give timely warning of the
approaching enemy, or to acquit themselves of all cowardice or
compliance as regards it. Let them prefer the Old Commandment, as it has
been from the beginning, to any novelties of man, recollecting Christ's
words, "Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he
walk naked, and they see his shame." [Rev. xvi. 15.]
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Note
Tuesday in Easter week.
Return to text
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Newman Reader Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|