---

1. "Did it ever strike you that St. Paul was mad?" was a question asked once, not by a scoffer, but by a man of powerful intellect, who felt that the question between Christianity and unbelief turned upon the case of Paul. For if the charge of Festus could be substantiated, one of the most powerful chapters of Christian evidence would be cancelled.

2. But we commend to the honest inquirer the study of this one chapter. St. Paul is correcting an exaggerated idea of the value of a particular gift. In all times human nature has been inclined to put display above profiting; and it required a sound and well-balanced judgment to keep gift in its place. And who can doubt that the true estimate was that taken here by St. Paul? (see 1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1). It required a very sound and a very sober judgment to subordinate the gift of tongues to the far less brilliant gift of "prophesying" in which only edification was aimed at. The maxims interspersed among the exhortations of this chapter are eminently illustrative of the plain and practical character of the man whom it is necessary for infidelity to represent as an enthusiast, or to hint into a madman (vers. 14, 15, 19, 26, 32, 33, 40).

3. The subject thus introduced is larger and wider than the mere question of the sanity of St. Paul. The charge, "In understanding be men," warns us very seriously of a danger, peculiarly pressing in these times, that, namely, of divorcing religion from manliness. If this is the gospel voice, then one offence, at least, is rolled out of the way. St. Paul says that there may be a childishness in the use of Divine gifts. He boldly declares even spiritual influences to be subordinate to considerations of propriety, of expediency, of common sense. No man is to say, I am no longer a free agent; the hand of God is upon me. This is to bring God's own gift into dishonour. It is just because it fits into His other gifts, because, while it elevates, it also sobers, that I see it to be an evidence of His interposition.

4. Now if miracle itself is not to be so treated as to make it childish, what shall we say of the excuses made in our day for the utter repudiation of every such criterion in reference to matters which can certainly plead no inspired authority? There are two higher classes of subjects upon the treatment of which St. Paul throws a guiding and comforting light in the weighty maxim before us.

I. REVELATION of course must be above reason. What intellect could discover, God would not reveal. If therefore on any topic revelation exists, that is proof sufficient that on that topic reason was silent.

1. When once the Divine origin of a revelation is attested by evidences of its being worthy of its Divine author, then it speaks, on each point which it touches, with authority.

2. But the office of the understanding in the first weighing of evidences, does not end here. The trying and testing of professed books of Scripture by the early Church was felt to be a heavy responsibility of the reason. Nor was the one settlement absolutely final. Particular clauses are found, on more modern and searching scrutinies, to be no part of the original text. And it is true reverence, as well as true wisdom, to exercise, upon all such matters, a large-minded and a manly judgment. God will guard His word written, and the God of truth is never honoured by a disingenuous treatment of the truth itself.

3. But there remains the weightiest matter of all, which is the interpretation of doctrine by the comparison of Scripture with Scripture. And here the mind must be employed if edification is to come to the student. Yet there are men who seem almost to think the contradiction of reason a sign of truth, and the mortification of the intellect a Christian duty.

II. PRACTICAL DUTY. Sin makes great havoc of human happiness; but next to it stands folly.

1. Could you but know, e.g., the utter foolishness of many parents and teachers on the great subject of education you would not wonder at the results, whether in the wilfulness of the youth or the misery of the manhood. Or again, would we but look back upon our own life's history, and mark the giddy thoughtlessness or the perverse infatuation which has characterised it, we could not but become conscious of the force of St. Paul's caution.

2. But how large is the action of this unintelligent childishness inside the Church, in the counsels and examples of Christian men! The whole theory of monasticism, the whole system of "direction," whether Romanist or Anglican, all that subjects my conscience to another man's rule, all that encourages a grovelling spirit in the worship and service of God in place of that honest, free, courageous bearing which finds the love of God life, and His service perfect freedom, is a contravention of Paul's rule.

3. How childish are half the biographies, diaries, devotions, of Christian saints! How little calculated to draw after them into God's service the strong inquiring intellect, the warm wholesome heart, the young enterprising life! Conclusion: Each one of us is in some real measure responsible for the look and tone of Christianity to our age. It is ours to make it great or to make it little, noble or contemptible.

(Dean Vaughan.)

---

---

KJV: Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

WEB: Brothers, don't be children in thoughts, yet in malice be babies, but in thoughts be mature.