THE CHRISTIAN LIFE;

ITS COURSE, ITS HINDRANCES, AND ITS HELPS. 

BYTHOMAS ARNOLD, D. D. , HEAD MASTER OF RUGBY SCHOOL, AND LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD. 

From the Fifth London Edition. 

1856. 

 "As far as the principle on which Archbishop Laud and his followers acted went to re-actuate the idea of the church, as a co-ordinate and living power by right of Christ's institution and express promise, I go along with them; but I soon discover that by the church they meant the clergy, the hierarchy exclusively, and then I fly off from them in a tangent. 

 "For it is this very interpretation of the church, that, according to my conviction, constituted the first and fundamental apostasy; and I hold it for one of the greatest mistakes of our polemical divines, in their controversies with the Romanists, that they trace all the corruptions of the gospel faith to the Papacy. "--COLERIDGE, _Literary Remains_, vol. Iii. P. 386. 

CONTENTS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

LECTURE I. 

GEN. Iii. 22. --And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as oneof us, to know good and evil. 

LECTURE II. 

1 COR. Xiii. 11. --When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood asa child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put awaychildish things. 

LECTURE III. 

1 COR. Xiii. 11. --When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood asa child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put awaychildish things. 

LECTURE IV. 

COL. I. 9. --We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye mightbe filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritualunderstanding. 

LECTURE V. 

COL. I. 9. --We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye mightbe filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritualunderstanding. 

LECTURE VI. 

COL. Iii. 3. --Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 

LECTURE VII. 

1 COR. Iii. 21--23. --All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, orCephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things tocome; all are yours, and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. 

LECTURE VIII. 

GAL. V. 16, 17. --Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lustsof the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spiritagainst the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so thatye cannot do the things that ye would. 

LECTURE IX. 

LUKE xiv. 33. --Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that hehath, he cannot be my disciple. 

LECTURE X. 

1 TIM. I. 9. --The law is not made for a righteous man, but for thelawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholyand profane. 

LECTURE XI. 

LUKE xxi. 36. --Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may beaccounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, andto stand before the Son of Man. 

LECTURE XII. 

PROV. I. 28. --Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer: theyshall seek me early, but they shall not find me. 

LECTURE XIII. 

MARK xii. 34. --Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. 

LECTURE XIV. 

MATT. Xxii. 14. --For many are called, but few are chosen. 

LECTURE XV. 

LUKE xi. 25. --When he cometh he findeth it swept and garnished. 

JOHN v. 42. --I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 

LECTURE XVI. 

MATT. Xi. 10. --I send my messenger before thy face, who shall preparethy way before thee. 

LECTURE XVII. 

1 COR. Ii. 12. --We have received not the Spirit of the world, but theSpirit which is of God. 

LECTURE XVIII. 

GEN. Xxvii. 38. --And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but oneblessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father. 

MATT. Xv. 27. --And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbswhich fall from their master's table. 

LECTURE XIX. 

MATT. Xxii. 32. --God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 

LECTURE XX. 

EZEK. Xiii. 22. --With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, thathe should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life. 

LECTURE XXI. 

ADVENT SUNDAY. 

HEB. Iii. 16. --For some when they had heard did provoke; howbeit not allthat came out of Egypt by Moses. 

LECTURE XXII. 

CHRISTMAS DAY. 

JOHN i. 10. --He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and theworld knew him not. 

LECTURE XXIII. 

SUNDAY NEXT BEFORE EASTER. 

MATT. Xxvi. 40, 41. --What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watchand pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed iswilling, but the flesh is weak. 

LECTURE XXIV. 

GOOD FRIDAY. 

ROMANS v. 8. --God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we wereyet sinners, Christ died for us. 

LECTURE XXV. 

EASTER DAY. 

JOHN xx. 20. --Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. 

LECTURE XXVI. 

WHITSUNDAY. 

ACTS xix. 2. --Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

LECTURE XXVII. 

TRINITY SUNDAY. 

JOHN iii. 9. --How can these things be?

LECTURE XXVIII. 

EXOD. Iii. 6. --And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look uponGod. 

LUKE xxiii. 30. --Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall onus; and to the hills, Cover us. 

LECTURE XXIX. 

PSALM cxxxvii. 4. --- How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strangeland?

LECTURE XXX. 

1 COR. Xi. 26. --For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 

LECTURE XXXI. 

LUKE i. 3, 4. --It seemed good to me, also, having had perfectunderstanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee inorder, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certaintyof those things wherein thou hast been instructed. 

LECTURE XXXII. 

Luke i. 3, 4. --It seemed good to me, also, having had perfectunderstanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee inorder, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certaintyof those things wherein thou hast been instructed. 

LECTURE XXXIII. 

JOHN ix. 29. --We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, weknow not from whence he is. 

LECTURE XXXIV. 

1 COR. Xiv. 20. --Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit, inmalice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 

LECTURE XXXV. 

MATT. Xxvi. 45, 46. --Sleep on now and take your rest; behold the hour isat hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold he is at hand that doth betray me. 

LECTURE XXXVI. 

2 COR. V. 17, 18. --Old things are passed away; behold all things arebecome new, and all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himselfby Jesus Christ. 

LECTURE XXXVII. 

EZEK. Xx. 49. --Then said I, Ah, Lord God! they say of me Doth he notspeak parables?

LECTURE XXXVIII. 

ISAIAH v. 1. --Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my belovedtouching his vineyard. 

LECTURE XXXIX. 

COL. Iii. 17. --Whatsoever ye do in the word or deed, do all in the nameof the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him. 

NOTES. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The contents of this volume will be found, I hope, to be in agreementwith its title. 

Amongst the helps of Christian life, the highest place is due to theChristian church and its ordinances. I have been greatly misunderstoodwith respect to my estimate of the Christian church, as distinguishedfrom the Christian religion. I agree so far with those, from whom I inother things most widely differ, that I hold the revival of the churchof Christ in its full perfection, to be the one great end to which allour efforts should be directed. This is with me no new belief, but onewhich I have entertained for many years. It was impressed most stronglyupon me, as it appears to have been upon others, by the remarkable stateof affairs and of opinions which we witnessed in this country about nineor ten years ago; and everything since that time has confirmed it in mymind more and more. 

Others, according to their own statement, received the same impressionfrom the phenomena of the same period. But the movement had begunearlier; nor should I object to call it, as they do, a movement towards"something deeper and truer than satisfied the last century[1]. " Itbegan, I suppose, in the last ten years of the last century, and hasever since been working onwards, though for a long time slowly andsecretly, and with no distinctly marked direction. But still, inphilosophy and general literature, there have been sufficient proofsthat the pendulum, which for nearly two hundred years had been swingingone way, was now beginning to swing back again; and as its lastoscillation brought it far from the true centre, so it may be, that itspresent impulse may be no less in excess, and thus may bring on again, in after ages, another corresponding reaction. 

[Footnote 1: See Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 27. ]

Now if it be asked what, setting aside the metaphor, are the two pointsbetween which mankind has been thus moving to and fro; and what are thetendencies in us which, thus alternately predominating, give sodifferent a character to different periods of the human history; theanswer is not easy to be given summarily, for the generalisation whichit requires is almost beyond the compass of the human mind. Severalphenomena appear in each period, and it would be easy to give any one ofthese as marking its tendency: as, for instance, we might describe oneperiod as having a tendency to despotism, and another to licentiousness:but the true answer lies deeper, and can be only given by discoveringthat common element in human nature which, in religion, in politics, inphilosophy, and in literature, being modified by the subject-matter ofeach, assumes in each a different form, so that its own proper nature isno longer to be recognized. Again, it would be an error to suppose thateither of the two tendencies which so affect the course of human affairswere to be called simply bad or good. Each has its good and evil nicelyintermingled; and taking the highest good of each, it would be difficultto say which was the more excellent;--taking the last corruption ofeach, we could not determine which, was the more hateful. For so far aswe can trace back the manifold streams, flowing some from the easternmountains, and some from the western, to the highest springs from whichthey rise, we find on the one side the ideas of truth and justice, onthe other those of beauty and love;--things so exalted, and soinseparably united in the divine perfections, that to set either twoabove the other were presumptuous and profane. Yet these most divinethings separated from each other, and defiled in their passage throughthis lower world, do each assume a form in human nature of very greatevil: the exclusive and corrupted love of truth and justice becomes inman selfish atheism; the exclusive and corrupted worship of beauty andlove becomes in man a bloody and a lying idolatry. 

Such would be the general theory of the two great currents in whichhuman affairs may be said to have been successively drifting. But realhistory, even the history of all mankind, and much more that of anyparticular age or country, presents a picture far more complicated. First, as to time: as the vessels in a harbour, and in the open seawithout it, may be seen swinging with the tide at the same moment inopposite directions; the ebb has begun in the roadstead, while it is notyet high water in the harbour; so one or more nations may be in advanceof or behind the general tendency of their age, and from either causemay be moving in the opposite direction. Again, the tendency or movementin itself is liable to frequent interruptions, and shortcounter-movements: even when the tide is coming in upon the shore, everywave retires after its advance; and he who follows incautiously theretreating waters, may be caught by some stronger billow, overwhelmingagain for an instant the spot which had just been left dry. A childstanding by the sea-shore for a few minutes, and watching this, as itseems, irregular advance and retreat of the water, could not tellwhether it was ebb or flood; and we, standing for a few years on theshore of time, can scarcely tell whether the particular movement whichwe witness is according to or against the general tendency of the wholeperiod. Farther yet, as these great tendencies are often interrupted, soare they continually mixed: that is, not only are their own good and badelements successively predominant, but they never have the world whollyto themselves: the opposite tendency exists, in an under-current it maybe, and not lightly perceptible; but here and there it struggles to thesurface, and mingles its own good and evil with the predominant good andevil of its antagonist. Wherefore he who would learn wisdom from thecomplex experience of history, must question closely all its phenomena, must notice that which is less obvious as well as that which is mostpalpable; must judge not peremptorily or sweepingly, but with reservesand exceptions; not as lightly overrunning a wide region of the truth, but thankful if after much pains he has advanced his landmarks only alittle; if he has gained, as it were, but one or two frontierfortresses, in which he can establish himself for ever. 

Now, then, when Mr. Newman describes the movement of the present momentas being directed towards "something better and deeper than satisfiedthe last century, " this description, although in some sense true, is yetin practice delusive; and the delusion which lurks in it is at the rootof the errors of Mr. Newman and of his friends. They regard thetendencies of the last century as wholly evil; and they appear to extendthis feeling to the whole period of which the last century was theclose, and which began nearly with the sixteenth century. Viewing inthis light the last three hundred years, they regard naturally withexcessive favour the preceding period, with which they are so stronglycontrasted; and not the less because this period has been an object ofscorn to the times which have followed it. They are drawn towards theenemy of their enemy, and they fancy that it must be in all points theirenemy's opposite. And if the faults of its last decline are too palpableto be denied, they ascend to its middle and its earlier course, andfinding that its evils are there less flagrant, they abandon themselveswholly to the contemplation of its good points, and end with making itan idol. There are few stranger and sadder sights than to see menjudging of whole periods of the history of mankind with the blindness ofparty-spirit, never naming one century without expressions of contemptor abhorrence, never mentioning another but with extravagant andundistinguishing admiration. 

But the worst was yet to come. The period which Mr. Newman and hisfriends so disliked, had, in its religious character, been distinguishedby its professions of extreme veneration for the Scriptures; in itsquarrel with the system of the preceding period, it had rested all itscause on the authority of the Scripture, --it had condemned the oldersystem because Scripture could give no warrant for it. On the otherhand, the partizans of the older system protested against the exclusiveappeal to Scripture; there was, as they maintained, another authority inreligious matters; if their system was not supported in all its pointsby Scripture, it had at least the warrant of Christian antiquity. ThusMr. Newman and his friends found that the times which they disliked hadprofessed to rely on Scripture alone; the times which they loved hadinvested the Church with equal authority. It was natural then to connectthe evils of the iron age, for so they regarded it, with this notion ofthe sole supremacy of Scripture; and it was no less natural to associatethe blessings of their imagined golden age with its avowed reverence forthe Church. If they appealed only to Scripture, they echoed the languageof men whom they abhorred; if they exalted the Church and Christianantiquity, they sympathised with a period which they were resolved tolove. Their theological writings from the very beginning have tooplainly shown in this respect the force both of their sympathies andtheir antipathies. 

Thus previously disposed, and in their sense or apprehension of the evilof their own times already flying as it were for refuge to the system oftimes past, they were overtaken by the political storm of 1831, and thetwo following years. That storm rattled loudly, and alarmed many who hadviewed the gathering of the clouds with hope and pleasure; no wonder, then, if it produced a stormy effect upon those who viewed it as a merecalamity, an evil monster bred out of an evil time, and fraught withnothing but mischief. Farther, the government of the country was now, for the first time for many years, in the hands of men who admired thespirit of the age, nearly as much as Mr. Newman and his friends abhorredit. Thus all things seemed combined against them: the spirit of theperiod which they so hated was riding as it were upon the whirlwind;they knew not where its violence might burst; and the government of thecountry was, as they thought, driving wildly before it, withoutattempting to moderate its fury. Already they were inclined to recognisethe signs of a national apostasy. 

But from this point they have themselves written their own history. --Mr. Percival's letter to the editor of the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal, which was reprinted in the Oxford Herald of January 80, 1841, is reallya document of the highest value. It acquaints us, from the very bestauthority, with the immediate occasion of the publication of the Tractsfor the Times, and with the objects of their writers. It tells uswhither their eyes were turned for deliverance; with what charm theyhoped to allay the troubled waters. Ecclesiastical history would be farmore valuable than it is, if we could thus learn the real character andviews of every church, or sect, or party, from itself, and not from itsopponents. 

Mr. Percival informs us, that the Irish Church Act of 1833, whichabolished several of the Irish Bishoprics, was the immediate occasion ofthe publication of the Tracts for the Times; and that the objects ofthat publication were, to enforce the doctrine of the apostolicalsuccession, and to preserve the Prayer Book from "the Socinian leaven, with which we had reason to fear it would be tainted by theparliamentary alteration of it, which at that time was openly talkedof. " But the second of these objects is not mentioned in the more formalstatements which Mr. Percival gives of them; and in what he calls the"matured account" of the principles of the writers, it is only said, "Whereas there seems great danger at present of attempts at unauthorizedand inconsiderate innovation as in other matters so especially in theservice of our Church, we pledge ourselves to resist any attempt thatmay be made to alter the Liturgy on insufficient authority: i. E. Withoutthe exercise of the free and deliberate judgment of the Church on thealterations proposed. " It would seem, therefore, that what wasparticularly deprecated was "the alteration of the Liturgy oninsufficient authority, " without reference to any suspected character ofthe alteration in itself. But at any rate, as all probability of anyalteration in the Liturgy vanished very soon after the publication ofthe tracts began, the other object, the maintaining the doctrine of theapostolical succession, as it had been the principal one from thebeginning, became in a very short time the only one. 

The great remedy, therefore, for the evils of the times, the "somethingdeeper and truer than satisfied the last century, " or, at least, themost effectual means of attaining to it, is declared to be themaintenance of the doctrine of apostolical succession. Now let us hear, for it is most important, the grounds on which this doctrine is to beenforced, and the reason why so much stress is laid on it. I quote againfrom Mr. Percival's letter. 

"Considering, 1. That the only way of salvation is the partaking of thebody and blood of our sacrificed Redeemer;

"2. That the mean expressly authorized by him for that purpose is theholy sacrament of his supper;

"3. That the security by him no less expressly authorized, for thecontinuance and due application of that sacrament, is the apostolicalcommission of the bishops, and under them the presbyters of the church;

"4. That under the present circumstances of the church in England, thereis peculiar danger of these matters being slighted and practicallydisavowed, and of numbers of Christians being left, or tempted toprecarious and unauthorized ways of communion, which must terminateoften in vital apostasy:--

"We desire to pledge ourselves one to another, reserving our canonicalobedience, as follows:--

"1. To be on the watch for all opportunities of inculcating, on allcommitted to our charge, a due sense of the inestimable privilege ofcommunion with our Lord, through the successors of the apostles, and ofleading them to the resolution to transmit it, by his blessing, unimpaired to their children. "

Then follow two other resolutions: one to provide and circulate booksand tracts, to familiarize men's minds with this doctrine; and theother, "to do what lies in us towards reviving among churchmen, thepractice of daily common prayer, and more frequent participation of theLord's Supper. "

The fourth resolution, "to resist unauthorized alterations of theLiturgy, " I have already quoted: the fifth and last engages generally toplace within the reach of all men, accounts of such points in ourdiscipline and worship as may appear most likely to be misunderstood orundervalued. 

These resolutions were drawn up more than seven years ago, and theirpractical results have not been contemptible. The Tracts for the Timesamount to no fewer than ninety; while the sermons, articles in reviews, stories, essays, poems, and writings of all sorts which have enforcedthe same doctrines, have been also extremely numerous. Nor have allthese labours been without fruit: for it is known that a largeproportion of the clergy have adopted, either wholly or in great part, the opinions and spirit of the Tracts for the Times; and many of thelaity have embraced them also. 

It seems also, that in the various publications of their school, theobject originally marked out in the resolutions quoted above, has beenfollowed with great steadiness. The system has been uniform, and itsseveral parts have held well together. It has, perhaps, been carried onof late more boldly, which is the natural consequence of success. It hasin all points been the direct opposite of what may be called the spiritof English protestantism of the nineteenth century: upholding whateverthat spirit would depreciate; decrying whatever it would admire. Ashort statement of the principal views held by Mr. Newman and hisfriends, will show this sufficiently. 

"The sacraments, and not preaching, are the sources of divine grace. " Soit is said in the Advertisement prefixed to the first volume of theTracts for the Times, in exact conformity with the preamble to theresolutions, which I have already quoted. But the only security for theefficacy of the sacraments, is the apostolical commission of thebishops, and under them, of the presbyters of the Church. So it is saidin the preamble to the resolutions. These two doctrines are thefoundation of the whole system. God's grace, and our salvation, come tous principally through the virtue of the sacraments; the virtue of thesacraments depends on the apostolical succession of those who administerthem. The clergy, therefore, thus holding in their hands the mostprecious gifts of the Church, acquire naturally the title of the Churchitself; the Church, as possessed of so mysterious a virtue as tocommunicate to the only means of salvation their saving efficacy, becomes at once an object of the deepest reverence. What wonder if to abody endowed with so transcendant a gift, there should be given also thespirit of wisdom to discern all truth; so that the solemn voice of theChurch in its creeds, and in the decrees of its general councils, mustbe received as the voice of God himself. Nor can such a body be supposedto have commended any practices or states of life winch are not reallyexcellent; and the duty either of all Christians, or of those at leastwho would follow the most excellent way. Fasting, therefore, and thestate of celibacy, are the one a christian obligation, the other achristian perfection. Again, being members of a body so exalted, andreceiving our very salvation in a way altogether above reason, we mustbe cautious how we either trust to our individual conscience ratherthan to the command of the Church, or how we venture to exercise ourreason at all in judging of what the Church teaches; childlike faith andchildlike obedience are the dispositions which God most loves. What, then, are they who are not of the Church, who do not receive theSacraments from those who can alone give them their virtue? Surely theyare aliens from God, they cannot claim his covenanted mercies; and thegoodness which may be apparent in them, may not be real goodness; Godmay see that it is false, though to us it appears sincere; but it iscertain that they do not possess the only appointed means of salvation;and therefore, we must consider their state as dangerous, although, wemay not venture to condemn them. 

I have not consciously misrepresented the system of Mr. Newman and hisfriends in a single particular; I have not, to my knowledge, expressedany one of their tenets invidiously. An attentive reader may deduce, Ithink, all the Subordinate points in their teaching from some one ormore of the principles which I have given; but I have not wilfullyomitted any doctrine of importance. And, in every point, the oppositionto what I may be allowed to call the protestantism of the nineteenthcentury is so manifest, that we cannot but feel that the peculiarcharacter of the system is to be traced to what I have beforenoticed--the extreme antipathy of its founders to the spirit which theyfelt to be predominant in their own age and country. 

It is worth our while to observe this, because fear and passion are notthe surest guides to truth, and the rule of contraries is not the ruleof wisdom. Other men have been indignant against the peculiar evils oftheir own time, and from their strong impression of these have seemed tolose sight of its good points; but Mr. Newman and his friends appear tohate the nineteenth century for its own sake, and to proscribe allbelonging to it, whether good or bad, simply because it does belong toit. --This diseased state of mind is well shown by the immediate occasionof the organization of their party. Mr. Perceval tells us that it wasthe Act for the dissolution of some of the Irish bishoprics, passed in1833, winch first made the authors of the Tracts resolve to commencetheir publication. Mr. Perceval himself cannot even now speak of thatAct temperately; he calls it "a wanton act of sacrilege, " "a monstrousact, " "an outrage upon the Church;" and his friends, it may be presumed, spoke of it at the time in language at least equally vehement. Now, I amnot expressing any opinion upon the justice or expediency of that Act;it was opposed by many good men, and its merits or demerits were fairlyopen to discussion; but would any fair and sensible person speak of itwith such extreme abhorrence as it excited in the minds of Mr. Percevaland his friends? The Act deprived the Church of no portion of itsproperty; it simply ordered a different distribution of it, with theavowed object on the part of its framers of saving the Church from theodium and the danger of exacting Church Rates from the Roman Catholics. It did nothing more than what, according to the constitution of theChurches of England and Ireland, was beyond all question within itslawful authority to do. The King's supremacy and the sovereignty ofParliament may be good or bad, but they are undoubted facts in theconstitution of the Church of England, and have been so for nearly threehundred years. I repeat that I am stating no opinion as to the merits ofthe Irish Church Act of 1833; I only contend, that no man of soundjudgment would regard it as "a monstrous act, " or as "a wantonsacrilege. " It bore upon it no marks of flagrant tyranny: nor did itrestrain the worship of the Church, nor corrupt its faith, nor commandor encourage anything injurious to men's souls in practice. Luther wasindignant at the sale of indulgences; and his horror at the sellingChurch pardons for money was, by God's blessing, the occasion of theReformation. The occasion of the new counter-reformation was theabolition of a certain number of bishoprics, that their revenues mightbe applied solely to church purposes; and that the Church might so besaved from a scandal and a danger. The difference of the exciting causeof the two movements gives the measure of the difference between theReformation of 1517, and the views and objects of Mr. Newman andhis friends. 

There are states of nervous excitement, when the noise of a lightfootstep is distracting. In such a condition were the authors of theTracts in 1833, and all their subsequent proceedings have shown that thedisorder was still upon them. Beset by their horror of the nineteenthcentury, they sought for something most opposite to it, and thereforethey turned to what they called Christian antiquity. Had they judged oftheir own times fairly, had they appreciated the good of the nineteenthcentury as well as its evil, they would have looked for their remedy notto the second or third or fourth centuries, but the first; they wouldhave tried to restore, not the Church of Cyprian, or Athanasius, orAugustine, but the Church of St. Paul and of St. John. Now, this it ismost certain that they have not done. Their appeal has been not toScripture, but to the opinions and practices of the dominant party inthe ancient Church. They have endeavoured to set those opinions andpractices, under the name of apostolical tradition, on a level with theauthority of the Scriptures. But their unfortunate excitement has madethem fail of doing even what they intended to do. It may be true thatall their doctrines may be found in the writings of those whom they callthe Fathers; but the effect of their teaching is different because itsproportions are altered. Along with their doctrines, there are otherpoints and another spirit prominent in the writings of the earlierChristians, which give to the whole a different complexion. The Tractsfor the Times do not appear to me to represent faithfully the languageof Christian antiquity; they are rather its caricature. 

Still more is this the case, when we compare the language of Mr. Newmanand his friends with that of the great divines of the Church of England. Granting that many of these believed firmly in apostolical succession;that one or two may have held general councils to be infallible; thatsome, provoked by the extravagances of the puritans, have spokenover-strongly about the authority of tradition; yet the whole works evenof those who agree with. Mr. Newman in these points, give a view ofChristianity different from that of the Tracts, because these points, which in the Tracts stand forward without relief, are in our old divinestempered by the admixture of other doctrines, which, withoutcontradicting them, do in fact alter their effect. This applies moststrongly, perhaps, to Hooker and Taylor; but it holds good also of Bulland Pearson. Pearson's exposition of the article in the Creed relatingto the Holy Catholic Church is very different from the language of Mr. Newman: it is such as, with perhaps one single exception, might besubscribed by a man who did not believe in apostolical succession[2]. Again, Pearson is so far from making the creeds an independentauthority, co-ordinate with Scripture, that he declares, contrary, Isuppose, to all probability, that the Apostles' Creed itself was but adeduction from our present Scriptures of the New Testament[3]. Undoubtedly the divines of the seventeenth century are more in agreementwith the Tracts than the Reformers are; but it is by no means true thatthis agreement is universal. There is but one set of writers whose mindsare exactly represented by Mr. Newman and his friends, and these are thenonjurors. 

[Footnote 2: The sixth and last mark which he gives of the unity of theChurch is, "the unity of discipline and government. " "All the Churchesof God have the same pastoral guides appointed, authorized, sanctified, and set apart by the appointment of God, by the direction of the Spirit, to direct and lead the people of God in the same way of eternalsalvation; as, therefore, there is no Church where there is no order, noministry, so where the same order and ministry is, there is the sameChurch. And this is the unity of regiment and discipline. " Pearson onthe Creed, Art. IX. P. 341, seventh edit. Fol. 1701. It would be easy toput a construction upon this paragraph which I could agree with; but Isuppose that Pearson meant what I hold to be an error. Yet how gentlyand generally is it expressed; and this doubtful paragraph stands aloneamidst seventeen folio pages on the article of the Holy Catholic Church. And in his conclusion, where he delivers what "every one ought to intendwhen they profess to believe the Holy Catholic Church, " there is not aword about its government; nor is Pearson one of those interpreters whopervert the perfectly certain meaning of the word "Catholic" to favourtheir own notions about episcopacy. I could cordially subscribe to everyword of this conclusion. ]

[Footnote 3: "To believe, therefore, as the word stands in the front ofthe Creed, . .. Is to assent to the whole and every part of it as to acertain and infallible truth revealed by God, . .. And delivered unto usin the writings of the blessed apostles and prophets immediatelyinspired, moved, and acted by God, out of whose writings this brief sumof necessary points of faith was first collected. " (P. 12. ) And in theparagraph immediately preceding, Pearson had said, "The household of Godis built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, who arecontinued unto us only in their writings, and by them alone convoy untous the truths which they received from God, upon whose testimony webelieve. " It appears, therefore, that Pearson not only subscribed the6th Article of the Church of England, but also believed it. ]

Many reasons, therefore, concur to make it doubtful whether the authorsof the Tracts have discovered the true remedy for the evils of theirage; whether they have really inculcated "something better and deeperthan satisfied the last century. " The violent prejudice which previouslypossessed them, and the strong feelings of passion and fear which ledimmediately to their first systematic publications, must in the firstinstance awaken a suspicion as to their wisdom; and this suspicionbecomes stronger when we find their writings different from the best ofthose which they profess to admire, and bearing a close resemblance onlyto those of the nonjurors. A third consideration is also of muchweight--that their doctrines do not enforce any great points of moral orspiritual perfection which other Christians had neglected; nor do they, in any especial manner, "preach Christ. " In this they offer a strikingcontrast to the religious movement, if I may so call it, which begansome years since in the University at Cambridge. That movement, whateverhuman alloy might have mingled with it, bore on it most clear evidencethat it was in the main God's work. It called upon men to turn from sinand be reconciled to God; it emphatically preached Christ crucified. ButMr. Newman and his friends have preached as their peculiar doctrine, notChrist but the Church; we must go even farther and say, not the Church, but themselves. What they teach has no moral or spiritual excellence initself; but it tends greatly to their own exaltation. They exalt thesacraments highly, but all that they say of their virtue, all theiradmiration of them as so setting forth the excellence of faith, inasmuchas in them the whole work is of God, and man has only to receive andbelieve, would be quite as true, and quite as well-grounded, if theywere to abandon altogether that doctrine which it is their avowed objectespecially to enforce--the doctrine of apostolical succession. Referring again to the preamble of their original resolutions, alreadyquoted, we see that the two first articles alone relate to our Lord andto his Sacraments; the third, which is the great basis of their system, relates only to the Clergy. Doubtless, if apostolical succession beGod's will, it is our duty to receive it and to teach it; but a numberof clergymen, claiming themselves to have this succession, and insistingthat, without it, neither Christ nor Christ's Sacraments will save us, do, beyond all contradiction, preach themselves, and magnify their ownimportance. They are quite right in doing so, if God has commanded it;but such preaching has no manifest warrant of God in it; if it beaccording to God, it stands alone amongst his dispensations; hisprophets and his apostles had a different commission. "We preach, " saidSt. Paul, "not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves yourservants for Jesus' sake. " It is certain that the enforcing apostolicalsuccession as the great object of our teaching is precisely to do thatvery thing which St. Paul was commissioned not to do. 

This, to my mind, affords a very great presumption that the peculiardoctrines of Mr. Newman and his friends, those which they make it theirprofessed business to inculcate, are not of God. I am anxious not to bemisunderstood in saying this. Mr. Newman and his friends preach manydoctrines which are entirely of God; as Christians, as ministers ofChrist's Church, they preach God's word; and thus, a very large portionof their teaching is of God, blessed both to their hearers and tothemselves. Nay, even amongst the particular objects to which their own"Resolutions" pledge them, one is indeed most excellent--"the revival ofdaily common prayer, and more frequent participation of the Lord'sSupper. " This is their merit, not as Christians generally, but as aparty, (I use the word in no offensive sense;) in this respect theirefforts have done, and are doing great good. But they have themselvesdeclared that they will especially set themselves to preach apostolicalsuccession; and it is with reference to this, that I charge them with"preaching themselves;" it was of this I spoke, when I said that therewas a very great presumption that their peculiar doctrines were notof God. 

Again, the system which they hold up as "better and deeper thansatisfied the last century" is a remedy which has been tried oncealready: and its failure was so palpable, that all the evil of theeighteenth century was but the reaction from that enormous evil whichthis remedy, if it be one, had at any rate been powerless to cure. Apostolical succession, the dignity of the Clergy, the authority of theChurch, were triumphantly maintained for several centuries; and theirfull development was coincident, to say the least, with the corruptionalike of Christ's religion and Christ's Church. So far were they fromtending to realize the promises of prophecy, to perfect Christ's body upto the measure of the stature of Christ's own fulness, that Christ'sChurch declined during their ascendancy more and more;--she fell alikefrom truth and from holiness; and these doctrines, if they did not causethe evil, were at least quite unable to restrain it. For, in whateverpoints the fifteenth century differed from the fourth, it cannot be saidthat it upheld the apostolical succession less peremptorily, or attacheda less value to Church tradition, and Church authority. I am greatlyunderstating the case, but I am content for the present to do so: I willnot say that Mr. Newman's favourite doctrines were the very Antichristwhich corrupted Christianity; I will only say that they did not preventits corruption, --that when they were most exalted Christian truth andChristian goodness were most depressed. 

After all, however, what has failed once may doubtless be successful ona second trial: it is within possibility, perhaps, that a doctrine, although destitute of all internal evidence showing it to come from God, may be divine notwithstanding;--revealed for some purposes which wecannot fathom, or simply as an exercise of our obedience. All this maybe so; and if it can be shown to be so, there remains no other coursethan to believe God's word, and obey his commandments; only the strengthof the external evidence must be in proportion to the weakness of theinternal. A good man would ask for no sign from heaven to assure himthat God commands judgment, mercy, and truth; whatsoever things arepure, and lovely, and of good report, bear in themselves the seal oftheir origin; a seal which to doubt were blasphemy. But the cloud andthe lightnings and thunders, and all the signs and wonders wrought inEgypt and in the Red Sea, were justly required to give divine authorityto mere positive ordinances, in which, without such external warrant, none could have recognised the voice of God. We ask of Mr. Newman andhis friends to bring some warrant of Scripture for that which theydeclare to be God's will. They speak very positively and say, that "thesecurity by our Lord no less expressly authorized for the continuanceand due application of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is theapostolical commission of the bishops, and under them the presbyters ofthe Church. " They say that our Lord has authorized this "no lessexpressly" than he has authorized the Holy Supper as the mean ofpartaking in his body and blood. What our Lord has said concerning thecommunion is not truly represented: he instituted it as one mean ofgrace among many; not as_the_ mean; neither the sole mean, nor theprincipal. But allow, for an instant, that it was instituted as_the_mean; and give this sense to those well-known and ever-memorable wordsin which our Lord commanded his disciples to eat the bread and drink ofthe cup, in remembrance of him. His words commanding us to do this areexpress; "not less express, " we are told, is his "sanction of theapostolical commission of the bishops, as the security for thecontinuance and due application of the Sacrament. " Surely these writersallow themselves to pervert language so habitually, that they do notconsider when, and with regard to whom, they are doing it. They say thatour Lord has sanctioned the necessity of apostolical succession, inorder to secure the continuance and efficacy of the sacrament, "no lessexpressly" than he instituted the sacrament itself. If they had merelyasserted that he had sanctioned the necessity of apostolical succession, we might have supposed that, by some interpretation of their own, theyimplied his sanction of it, from words which, to other men, bore no suchmeaning. But in saying that he has "expressly sanctioned it, " they have, most unconsciously, I trust, ascribed their own words to our Lord; theymake Mm to say what he has not said, unless they can produce[4] someother credible record of his words besides the books of the fourevangelists and the apostolical epistles. 

[Footnote 4: "Scripture alone contains what remains to us of our Lord'steaching. If there be a portion of revelation sacred beyond otherportions, distinct and remote in its nature from the rest, it must bethe words and works of the eternal Son Incarnate. He is the one Prophetof the Church, as he is our one Priest and King. His history is as farabove any other possible revelation, as heaven is above earth: for in itwe have literally the sight of Almighty God in his judgments, thoughts, attributes, and deeds, and his mode of dealing with us his creatures. Now, this special revelation is in Scripture, and in Scripture only:tradition has no part in it. "--_Newman's Lectures on the PropheticalOffice of the Church_. 1837. Pp. 347, 348. ]

That their statement was untrue, and being untrue, that it is a mostgrave matter to speak untruly of our Lord's commands, are pointsabsolutely certain. But if they recall the assertion, as to theexpressness of our Lord's sanction, and mean to say, that his sanctionis implied, and may be reasonably deduced from what he has said, then Ianswer, that the deduction ought to be clear, because the doctrine initself bears on it no marks of having had Christ for its author. Yet sofar is it from true, that the necessity of apostolical succession, inorder to give efficacy to the sacrament, may be clearly deduced from anyrecorded words of our Lord, that there are no words[5] of his from whichit can be deduced, either probably or plausibly; none with which it hasany, the faintest, connexion; none from which it could be evenconjectured that such a tenet had ever been in existence. I am notspeaking, it will be observed, of apostolical succession simply; but ofthe necessity of apostolical succession, as a security for the efficacyof the sacrament. That this doctrine comes from God, is a positionaltogether without evidence, probability, or presumption, eitherinternal or external. 

[Footnote 5: Since this was written, I have found out, what certainly itwas impossible to anticipate beforehand, that our Lord's words, "Do thisin remembrance of me, " are supposed to teach the doctrine of thepriest's consecrating power. But the passage to which I refer is soremarkable that I must quote it in its author's own words. Mr. Newman, for the tract is apparently one of his, observes, that three out of thefour Gospels make no mention of the raising of Lazarus. He then goes on, "As the raising of Lazarus is true, though not contained at all in thefirst three Gospels; so the gift of consecrating the Eucharist may havebeen committed by Christ to the priesthood, though only indirectlytaught in any of the four. Will you say I am arguing against our ownChurch, which says the Scripture 'contains all things necessary to bebelieved to salvation?' Doubtless, Scripture _contains_ all thingsnecessary to be _believed_; but there may be things _contained_ whichare not _on the surface_, and things which belong to the _ritual_, andnot to _belief_. Points of faith may lie _under_ the surface: points ofobservance need not be in Scripture _at all_. The consecrating power isa point of ritual, yet it _is_ indirectly taught in Scripture, thoughnot brought out, when Christ said, 'Do this, ' for he spake to theapostles, who were priests, not to his disciples generally. "--_Tractsfor the Times_. Tract 85, p. 46. 

This passage is indeed characteristic of the moral and intellectualfaults which I have alluded to as marking the writings of the supportersof Mr. Newman's system. But what is become of the assertion, that thissecurity of the apostolical commission was "expressly authorized" by ourLord, when it is admitted that it is only indirectly taught inScripture? And what becomes of the notion, that what our Lord did orinstituted may be learned from another source than Scripture, when Mr. Newman has most truly stated, in the passage quoted in the precedingnote, that our Lord's history, the history of his words and works, "isin Scripture, and Scripture only: tradition has no part in it?" I passover the surprising state of mind which could imagine a distinctionbetween things necessary to be believed, and necessary to be done; andcould conceive such a distinction to be according to the meaning of ourarticle. It would appear that this shift has been since abandoned, andothers, no way less extraordinary, have been attempted in its place; foran extraordinary process it must be which tries to reconcile Mr. Newman's opinions with the declaration of the sixth article. But now forMr. Newman's scriptural proof, that our Lord "committed to thepriesthood the gift of consecrating the Eucharist. " "When Christ said, 'Do this, ' he spake to the apostles, who were priests, not to hisdisciples generally. " This would prove too much, for it would prove thatnone but the clergy were ordered to receive the communion at all: thewords, "Do this, " referring, not to any consecration, of which there hadbeen no word said, but to the eating the bread, and drinking of the cup. Again, when St. Paul says, "the cup which we bless, '--the bread which webreak, " it is certain that the word "we, " does not refer to himself andSosthenes, or to himself and Barnabas, but to himself and the wholeCorinthian church; for he immediately goes on, "for we, the whole numberof us, " ([Greek: oi polloi] compare Romans xii. 5, ) "are one body, forwe all are partakers of the one bread. " Thirdly, Tertullian expresslycontrasts the original institution of our Lord with the church practiceof his own day, in this very point. "Eucharistiæ sacramentum et intempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibusnee de aliorum manu quam præridentium sumimus. " (_De Coroná Mililis_, 3. ) I know that Tertullian believes the alteration to have been foundedupon an apostolical tradition; but he no less names it as a change fromthe original institution of our Lord; nor does he appear to consider itas more than a point of order. Lastly, what shadow of probability isthere, and is it not begging the whole question, to assume that our Lordspoke to his apostles as priests, and not as representatives of thewhole Christian church? His language makes no distinction between hisdisciples and those who were without; it repels it as dividing hisdisciples from each other. His twelve disciples were the apostles of thechurch, but they were not priests. In such matters our Lord's wordsapply exactly, "One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye arebrethren. "]

On the whole, then, the movement in the church, excited by Mr. Newmanand his friends, appears to be made in a false direction, and to beincapable of satisfying the feeling which prompted it. I have notnoticed other presumptions against it, arising from the consequences towhich the original doctrines of the party have since led, or fromcertain moral and intellectual faults which have marked the writings ofits supporters. It is enough to say, that the movement originated inminds highly prejudiced beforehand, and under the immediate influence ofpassion and fear; that its doctrines, as a whole, resemble the teachingof no set of writers entitled to respect, either in the early church, orin our own; that they tend, not to Christ's glory, or to the advancementof holiness, but simply to the exaltation of the clergy; and that theyare totally unsupported by the authority of Scripture. They are a plant, therefore, which our heavenly Father has not planted; a speaking in thename of the Lord what the Lord has not commanded; hay and stubble, built upon the foundation of Christ, which are good for nothing but tobe burned. 

I have spoken quite confidently of the total absence of all support inScripture for Mr. Newman's favourite doctrine of "the necessity ofapostolical succession, in order to ensure the effect of thesacraments. " This doctrine is very different from that of the Divineappointment of episcopacy as a form of government, or even from that ofthe exclusive lawfulness of that episcopacy which has come down bysuccession from the apostles. Much less is it to be confounded with anynotions, however exalted, of the efficacy of the sacraments, even thoughcarried to such a length as we read of in the early church, when livingmen had themselves baptized as proxies for the dead, and when a portionof the wine of the communion was placed by the side of a corpse in thegrave. Such notions may be superstitious and unscriptural, as indeedthey are, but they are quite distinct from a belief in the necessity ofa human priest to give the sacraments their virtue. And, without goingto such lengths as this, men may overestimate the efficacy of thesacraments, to the disparagement of prayer, and preaching, and readingthe Scriptures, and yet may be perfectly clear from the opinion whichmakes this efficacy depend immediately on a human administrator. And soagain, men may hold episcopacy to be divine, and the episcopacy ofapostolical succession to be the only true episcopacy, but yet they mayutterly reject the notion of its being essential to the efficacy of thesacraments. It is of this last doctrine only that I assert, in thestrongest terms, that it is wholly without support in Scripture, director indirect, and that it does not minister to godliness. 

In truth, Mr. Newman and his friends are well aware that the Scripturewill not support their doctrine, and therefore it is that they haveproceeded to such, lengths in upholding the authority not of the creedsonly, but of the opinions and practices of the ancient church generally;and that they try to explain away the clear language of our article, that nothing "which is neither read therein (i. E. In holy Scripture, )nor may be proved thereby, is to be required of any man that it shouldbe believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessaryto salvation. " It would be one of the most unaccountable phenomena ofthe human mind, were any man fairly to come to the conclusion that theScriptures and the early church were of equal authority, and that theauthority of both were truly divine. If any men resolve to maintaindoctrines and practices as of divine authority, for which the Scriptureoffers no countenance, they of course are driven to maintain theauthority of the church in their own defence; and where they have aninterest in holding any particular opinion, its falsehood, howeverpalpable, is unhappily no bar to its reception. Otherwise it would seemthat the natural result of believing the early church to be of equalauthority with the Scripture, would be to deny the inspiration ofeither. For two things so different in several points as theChristianity of the Scriptures and that of the early church, mayconceivably be both false, but it is hard to think that they can both beperfectly true. 

I am here, however, allowing, what is by no means true, without manyqualifications, that Mr. Newman's system is that of the early church. The historical inquiry as to the doctrines of the early church wouldlead me into far too wide a field; I may only notice, in passing, howmany points require to be carefully defined in conducting such aninquiry; as, for instance, what we mean by the term "early church, " asto time; for that may be fully true of the church in the fourthcentury, which is only partially true of it in the third, and only in avery slight degree true of it in the second or first. And again, what dowe mean by the term "early church, " as to persons; for a few eminentwriters are not even the whole clergy; neither is it by any means to betaken on their authority that their views were really those of all thebishops and presbyters of the Christian world; but if they were, theclergy are not the church, nor can their judgments be morally consideredas the voice of the church, even if we were to admit that they could atany time constitute its voice legally. But, for my present purpose, wemay take for granted that Mr. Newman's system as to the pre-eminence ofthe sacraments, and the necessity of apostolical succession to give themtheir efficacy, was the doctrine of the early church; then I say thatthis system is so different from that of the New Testament, that toinvest the two with equal authority is not to make the church systemdivine, but to make the scriptural system human; or, at the best, perishable and temporary, like the ceremonial law of Moses. Either thechurch system must be supposed to have superseded the scripturalsystem[6], and its unknown authors are the real apostles of our presentfaith, in which case, we do not see why it should not be superseded inits turn, and why the perfect manifestation of Christianity should notbe found in the Koran, or in any still later system; or else neither ofthe two systems can be divine, but the one is merely the humanproduction of the first century, the other that of the second and third. If this be so, it is clearly open to all succeeding centuries to adoptwhichever of the two they choose, or neither. 

[Footnote 6: This, it is well known, has been most ably maintained byRothe, (_Artfãnge der Christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung_, Wittenberg, 1837, ) with respect to the origin of episcopacy. He contendsthat it was instituted by the surviving apostles after the destructionof Jerusalem, as an intentional change from the earlier constitution ofthe church, in order to enable it to meet the peculiar difficulties anddangers of the times. To this belongs the question of the meaning of theexpression, [Greek: oi tais deuterais ton Apostolon diataxesiparakolouthaekotes], in the famous Fragments of Irenæus, published byPfaff, from a manuscript in the library of Turin, and to be found in theVenice edition of Irenæus, 1734, vol. Ii. _Fragmentorum_, p. 10. Butthen Rothe would admit that if the apostles altered what they themselveshad appointed, it would follow that neither their earlier nor theirlater institutions were intended to be for all times and all places, butwere simply adapted to a particular state of circumstances, and werealterable when that state was altered: in short, whatever institutionsthe apostles changed were shown to be essentially changeable; otherwisetheir early institution was defective, which cannot be conceived. Andthus it may well be that the early church may have altered, in somepoints, the first institutions of the apostles, and may have been guidedby God's Spirit in doing so; but the error consists in believing thatthe now institutions were to be of necessity more permanent than thosewhich they succeeded; in supposing that either the one or the otherbelong to the eternal truths and laws of Christ's religion, when theybelong, in fact, to the essentially changeable regulations ofhis church. ]

To such consequences are those driven who maintain the divine authorityof the system of Mr. Newman. Assuredly the thirst for "something deeperand truer than satisfied the last century, " will not be allayed by adraught so scanty and so vapid; but after the mirage has beguiled anddisappointed him for a season, the traveller presses on the more eagerlyto the true and living well. 

In truth, the evils of the last century were but the inevitable fruitsof the long ascendency of Mr. Newman's favourite principles. Christ'sreligion had been corrupted in the long period before the Reformation, but it had ever retained many of its main truths, and it was easy, whenthe appeal was once made to Scripture, to sweep away the corruptions, and restore it in its perfect form; but Christ's church had beendestroyed so long and so completely, that its very idea was all butlost, and to revive it actually was impossible. What had been knownunder that name, --I am speaking of Christ's church, be it observed, asdistinguished from Christ's religion, --was so great an evil, that, hopeless of drawing any good from it, men looked rather to Christ'sreligion as all in all; and content with having destroyed the falsechurch, never thought that the scheme of Christianity could not beperfectly developed without the restoration of the true one. But thewant was deeply felt, and its consequences were deplorable. At thismoment men are truly craving something deeper than satisfied the lastcentury; they crave to have the true church of Christ, which the lastcentury was without. Mr. Newman perceives their want, and again offersthem that false church which is worse than none at all. 

The truths of the Christian religion are to be sought for in theScripture alone; they are the same at all times and in all countries. With the Christian church it is otherwise; the church is not arevelation concerning the unchangeable and eternal God, but aninstitution to enable changeable man to apprehend the unchangeable. Because man is changeable, the church is also changeable; changeable, not in its object, which is for ever one and the same, but in its meansfor effecting that object; changeable in its details, because the sametreatment cannot suit various diseases, various climates, variousconstitutional peculiarities, various external influences. 

The Scripture, then, which is the sole and direct authority for all thetruths of the Christian religion, is not in the same way, an authorityfor the constitution and rules of the Christian church; that is, it doesnot furnish direct authority, but guides us only by analogy: or itgives us merely certain main principles, which we must apply to our ownvarious circumstances. This is shown by the remarkable fact, thatneither our Lord nor his apostles have left any commands with respect tothe constitution and administration of the church generally. Commands inabundance they have left us on moral matters; and one commandment ofanother kind has been added, the commandment, namely, to celebrate theLord's Supper. "Do this in remembrance of me, " are our Lord's words; andSt. Paul tells us, if we could otherwise have doubted it, that thisremembrance is to be kept up for ever. "As often as ye eat that bread ordrink that cup ye do show the Lord's death _till he come_. " This is theone perpetual ordinance of the Christian church, and this is commandedto be kept perpetually. But its other institutions are mentionedhistorically, as things done once, but not necessarily to be alwaysrepeated: nay, they are mentioned without any details, so that we do notalways know what their exact form was in their original state, andcannot, therefore, if we would, adopt it as a perpetual model. Nor is itunimportant to observe that institutions are recorded as having beencreated on the spur of the occasion, if I may so speak, not as havingformed a part of an original and universal plan. A great change in thecharacter of the deacon, or subordinate minister's office, is introducedin consequence of the complaints of the Hellenist Christians: the numberof the apostles is increased by the addition of Paul and Barnabas, notappointed, as Matthias had been, by the other apostles themselves, butby the prophets and teachers of the church of Antioch. Again, thechurches founded by St. Paul were each, at first, placed by him underthe government of several presbyters; but after his imprisonment atRome, finding that they were become greatly corrupted, he sends outsingle persons, in two instances, with full powers to remodel thesechurches, and with authority to correct the presbyters themselves: yetit does not appear that these especial[7] visitors were to alterpermanently the earlier constitution of the churches; nor that they weresent generally to all the churches which St. Paul had founded. Indeed, it appears evident from the epistle of Clement, that the originalconstitution of the church of Corinth still subsisted in his time; thegovernment was still vested not in one man, but in many[8]. Yet a fewyears later the government of a single man, as we see from Ignatius, wasbecome very general; and Ignatius, as is well known, wishes to invest itwith absolute power[9]. I believe that he acted quite wisely accordingto the circumstances of the church at that period; and that nothing lessthan a vigorous unity of government could have struggled with thedifficulties and dangers of that crisis. But no man can doubt that thesystem which Ignatius so earnestly recommends was very different fromthat which St. Paul had instituted fifty or sixty years earlier. 

[Footnote 7: The command, "to appoint elders in every city, " is given toTitus, according to Paul's practice when he first formed churches of theGentiles (Acts xiv, 2. ) Nor did Timothy, or Titus, remain permanently atEphesus, or in Crete. Timothy, when St. Paul's second Epistle waswritten to him, was certainly not at Ephesus, but apparently in Pontus;and Titus, at the same period, was gone to Dalmatia: nor indeed was heto remain in Crete beyond the summer of the year in which St. Paul'sEpistle was written; he was to meet Paul, in the winter, at Nicopolis. ]

[Footnote 8: Only elders are spoken of as governing the church ofCorinth. It is impossible to understand clearly the nature of thecontest, and of the party against which Clement's Epistle is directed. Where he wishes the heads of that party to say, [Greek: ei di eme stasiskai eris kai schismata, ekchoro, apeimi, ou ean, boulaesthe, kai poio, ta, prostassomena upo tou plaethous], c. 54, it would seem as if theyhad been endeavouring to exercise a despotic authority over the church, in defiance of the general feeling, as well as of the existinggovernment, like those earlier persons at Corinth, whom St. Pauldescribes, in his second Epistle, xi. 20; and like Diotrephes, mentionedby St. John, 3 Epist. 9, 10. But in a society where all power must havedepended on the consent of those subject to it, how could any oneexercise a tyranny against the will of the majority, as well as againstthe authority of the Apostles? And [Greek: ta prostassomena upo touplaethous] must signify, I think, "the bidding of the society at large. "Compare for this use of [Greek: plaethos], Ignatius, Smyrna. 8;Trallian. 1, 8. A conjecture might be offered as to the solution of thisdifficulty, but it would lead mo into too long a discussion. ]

[Footnote 9: Insomuch that he wished all marriages to be solemnized withthe consent and approbation of the bishop, [Greek: meta gnomaes touepiskopou], that they might be "according to God, and not according topassion;" [Greek: kapa Theon kai mae kat epithomian]. --_Ad. Polycarp_. 5. ]

On two points, however, --points not of detail, but of principle, --theScripture does seem to speak decisively. 1st. The whole body of thechurch was to take an active share in its concerns; the variousfaculties of its various members were to perform their several parts: itwas to be a living society, not an inert mass of mere hearers andsubjects, who were to be authoritatively taught and absolutely ruled byone small portion of its members. It is quite consistent with this, that, at particular times, the church should centre all its own powerand activity in the persons of its rulers. In the field, the imperium ofthe Roman consul was unlimited; and even within the city walls, thesenate's commission in times of imminent danger, released him from allrestraints of law; the whole power of the state was, for the moment, his, and his only. Such temporary despotisms are sometimes not expedientmerely, but necessary: without them society would perish. I do not, therefore, regard Ignatius's epistles as really contradictory to theidea of the church conveyed to us in the twelfth chapter of St. Paul'sFirst Epistle to the Corinthians: I believe that the dictatorship, so tospeak, which Ignatius claims for the bishop in each church, was requiredby the circumstances of the case; but to change the temporary into theperpetual dictatorship, was to subvert the Roman constitution; and tomake Ignatius's language the rule, instead of the exception, is no lessto subvert the Christian church. Wherever the language of Ignatius isrepeated with justice, there the church must either be in its infancy, or in its dotage, or in some extraordinary crisis of danger; wherever itis repeated, as of universal application, it destroys, as in fact it hasdestroyed, the very life of Christ's institution. 

But, 2d, the Christian church was absolutely and entirely, at all times, and in all places, to be without a human priesthood. Despotic governmentand priesthood are things perfectly distinct from one another. Despoticgovernment might be required, from time to time, by this or that portionof the Christian church, as by other societies; for government isessentially changeable, and all forms, in the manifold varieties of thecondition of society, are, in their turn, lawful and beneficial. But apriesthood belongs to a matter not so varying--the relations subsistingbetween God and man. These relations were fixed for the Christian churchfrom its very foundation, being, in fact, no other than the main truthsof the Christian religion; and they bar, for all time, the very notionof an earthly priesthood. They bar it, because they establish theeverlasting priesthood of our Lord, which leaves no place for any other;they bar it, because priesthood is essentially mediation; and theyestablish one Mediator between God and man--the Man Christ Jesus. And, therefore, the notion of Mr. Newman and his friends, that the sacramentsderive their efficacy from the apostolical succession of the minister, is so extremely unchristian, that it actually deserves to be calledanti-christian; for there is no point of the priestly office, properlyso called, in which the claim of the earthly priest is not absolutelyprecluded. Do we want him for sacrifice? Nay, there is no place for himat all; for our one atoning Sacrifice has been once offered; and by itsvirtue we are enabled to offer daily our spiritual sacrifices ofourselves, which no other man can by possibility offer for us. Do wewant him for intercession? Nay, there is One who ever liveth to makeintercession for us, through whom we have access to ([Greek:prosalogaen], admission to the presence of) the Father, and for whosesake, Paul, and Apollos, and Peter, and things present, and things tocome, are all ours already. His claim can neither be advanced orreceived without high dishonour to our true Priest and to his blessedgospel. If circumcision could not be practised, as necessary, by abeliever in Christ, without its involving a forfeiture of the benefitsof Christ's salvation; how much more does St. Paul's language apply tothe invention of an earthly priesthood--a priesthood neither after theorder of Aaron, nor yet of Melchisedek; unlawful alike under the law andthe gospel. 

It is the invention of the human priesthood, which falling in, unhappily, with the absolute power rightfully vested in the Christianchurch during the troubles of the second century, fixed the exception asthe rule, and so in the end destroyed the church. It pretended that theclergy were not simply rulers and teachers, --offices which, necessarilyvary according to the state of those who are ruled and taught, --but thatthey were essentially mediators between God and the church; and as thislanguage would have sounded too profanely, --for the mediator betweenGod and the church can be none but Christ, --so the clergy began to drawto themselves the attributes of the church, and to call the church by adifferent name, such as the faithful, or the laity; so that to speak ofthe church mediating for the people did not sound so shocking, and thedoctrine so disguised found ready acceptance. Thus the evil work wasconsummated; the great majority of the members of the church, werevirtually disfranchised; the minority retained the name, but thecharacter of the institution was utterly corrupted. 

To revive Christ's church, therefore, is to expel the antichrist ofpriesthood, (which, as it was foretold of him, "as God, sitteth in thetemple of God, showing himself that he is God, ") and to restore itsdisfranchised members, --the laity, --to the discharge of their properduties in it, and to the consciousness of their paramount importance. This is the point which I have dwelt upon in the XXXVIII^{th} Lecture, and which is closely in connection with the point maintained in theXL^{th}; and all who value the inestimable blessings of Christ's churchshould labour in arousing the laity to a sense of their great share inthem. In particular, that discipline, which is one of the greatest ofthose blessings, never can, and, indeed, never ought to be restored, till the Church resumes its lawful authority, and puts an end to theusurpation of its powers by the clergy. There is a feeling now awakenedamongst the lay members of our Church, which, if it can but be rightlydirected, may, by God's blessing, really arrive at something truer anddeeper than satisfied the last century, or than satisfied the lastseventeen centuries. Otherwise, whatever else may be improved, the laitywill take care that church discipline shall continue to slumber, andthey will best serve the church by doing so. Much may be done to spreadthe knowledge of Christ's religion; new churches may be built; newministers appointed to preach the word and administer the sacraments;those may hear who now cannot hear; many more sick persons may bevisited; many more children may receive religious instruction: all thisis good, and to be received with sincere thankfulness; but, with aknowledge revealed to us of a still more excellent power in Christ'schurch, and with the abundant promises of prophecy in our hands, can werest satisfied with the lesser and imperfect good, which strikes thriceand stays? But, if the zeal of the lay members of our Church be directedby the principles of Mr. Newman, then the result will be, not merely alesser good, but one fearfully mixed with evil--Christian religionprofaned by anti-christian fables, Christian holiness marred bysuperstition and uncharitableness; Christian wisdom and Christiansincerity scoffed at, reviled, and persecuted out of sight. This isdeclared to us by the sure voice of experience; this was the fruit ofthe spirit of priestcraft, with its accompaniments of superstitiousrites and lying traditions, in the last decline of the Jewish church;this was the fruit of the same spirit, with the same accompaniments, inthe long decay of the Christian church; although, the indestructiblevirtue of Christ's gospel was manifest in the midst of the evil, andChrist, in every age and in every country, has been known with savingpower by some of his people, and his church, in her worst corruptions, has taught many divinest truths, has inculcated many holiest virtues. 

When the tide is setting strongly against us, we can scarcely expect tomake progress; it is enough if we do not drift along with it. Mr. Newman's system is now at the flood; it is daily making converts; it isdaily swelled by many of those who neither love it nor understand it initself, but who hope to make it serve their purposes, or who like toswim with the stream. A strong profession, therefore, of an oppositesystem must expect, at the present moment, to meet with little favour;nor, indeed, have I any hope of turning the tide, which will flow forits appointed season, and its ebb does not seem to be at hand. Butwhilst the hurricane rages, those exposed to it may well encourage oneanother to hold fast their own foundations against it; and many areexposed to it in whose welfare I naturally have the deepest interest, and in whom old impressions may be supposed to have still so much forcethat I may claim from them, at least, a patient hearing. I am anxious toshow them that Mr. Newman's system is to be opposed not merely onnegative grounds, as untrue, but as obstructing that perfect andpositive truth, that perfection of Christ's church, which the lastcentury, it may be, neglected, but which I value and desire as earnestlyas it can be valued and desired by any man alive. My great objection toMr. Newman's system is, that it destroys Christ's church, and sets up anevil in its stead. We do not desire merely to hinder the evil fromoccupying the ground, and to leave it empty; that has been, undoubtedly, the misfortune, and partly the fault of Protestantism; but we desire tobuild on the holy ground a no less holy temple, not out of our owndevices, but according to the teaching of Christ himself, who has givenus the outline, and told us what should be its purposes. 

The true church of Christ would offer to every faculty of our nature itsproper exercise, and would entirely meet all our wants. No wise mandoubts that the Reformation was imperfect, or that in the Romish systemthere were many good institutions, and practices, and feelings, which itwould be most desirable to restore amongst ourselves. Daily churchservices, frequent communions, memorials of our Christian callingcontinually presented to our notice, in crosses and way-side oratories;commemorations of holy men, of all times and countries; the doctrine ofthe communion of saints practically taught; religious orders, especiallyof women, of different kinds, and under different rules, delivered onlyfrom the snare and sin of perpetual vows; all these, most of which areof some efficacy for good, even in a corrupt church, belong no less tothe true church, and would there be purely beneficial. If Mr. Newman'ssystem attracts good and thinking men, because it seems to promise themall these things, which in our actual Church are not to be found, letthem remember, that these things belong to the perfect church no lessthan to that of the Romanists and of Mr. Newman, and would flourish inthe perfect church far more healthily. Or, again, if any man admires Mr. Newman's system for its austerities, if he regards fasting as a positiveduty, he should consider that these might be transferred also to theperfect church, and that they have no necessary connexion with thepeculiar tenets of Mr. Newman. We know that the Puritans were taunted bytheir adversaries for their frequent fasts, and the severity of theirlives; and they certainly were far enough from agreeing with Mr. Newman. Whatever there is of good, or self-denying, or ennobling, in his system, is altogether independent of his doctrine concerning the priesthood. Itis that doctrine which is the peculiarity of his system and of Romanism;it is that doctrine which constitutes the evil of both, whichover-weighs all the good accidentally united with it, and makes thesystems, as such, false and anti-christian. Nor can any human being findin this doctrine anything of a beneficial tendency either to hisintellectual, his moral, or his spiritual nature. If mere reverence be avirtue, without reference to its object, let us, by all means, dohonour to the virtue of those who fell down to the stock of a tree; andlet us lament the harsh censure which charged them with "having a lie intheir right hand[10]. "

[Footnote 10: The language which Mr. Newman and his friends have allowedthemselves to hold, in admiration of what they call reverential andsubmissive faith, might certainly be used in defence of the lowestidolatry; what they have dared to call rationalistic can plead such highand sacred authority in its favour, that if I were to quote some of thelanguage of the "Tracts for the Times, " and place by the side of itcertain passages from the New Testament, Mr. Newman and his friendswould appear to have been writing blasphemy. It seems scarcely possiblethat they could have remembered what is said in St. Matthew xv. 9-20, and who said it, when they have called it rationalism to deny aspiritual virtue in things that are applied to the body. ]

What does the true and perfect church want, that she should borrow fromthe broken cisterns of idolatry? Holding all those truths in which theclear voice of God's word is joined by the accordant confession of God'speople in all ages; holding all the means of grace of which she wasdesigned to be the steward--her common prayers, her pure preaching, heruncorrupted sacraments, her free and living society, her wise andsearching discipline, her commemorations and memorials of God's mercyand grace, whether shown in her Lord himself, or in his and hermembers;--looking lovingly upon her elder sisters, the ancient churches, and delighting to be in communion with them, as she hopes that heryounger sisters, the churches of later days, will delight to be incommunion with her;--what has she not, that Christ's bride should have?what has she not, that Mr. Newman's system can give her? But because sheloves her Lord, and stands fast in his faith, and has been enlightenedby his truth, she will endure no other mediator than Christ, she willrepose her trust only on his word, she will worship in the light, andwill abhor the words, no less than the works, of darkness. Her sisters, the elder churches, she loves and respects as she would be herself lovedand respected; but she will not, and may not, worship them, nor even, for their sakes, believe error to be truth, or foolishness to be wisdom. She dare not hope that she can be in all things a perfect guide andexample to the churches that shall come after her; as neither have thechurches before her been in all things a perfect guide and example toherself. She would not impose her yoke upon future generations, nor willshe submit her own neck to the yoke of antiquity. She honours all men, but makes none her idol; and she would have her own individual membersregard her with honour, but neither would she be an idol to them. Shedreads especially that sin of which her Lord has so emphatically warnedher--the sin against the Holy Ghost. She will neither lie against him bydeclaring that he is where his fruits are not manifested; nor blasphemehim, by saying that he is not where his fruits are. Rites and ordinancesmay be vain, prophets may be false, miracles may be miracles of Satan;but the signs of the Holy Spirit, truth and holiness, can never beineffectual, can never deceive, can never be evil; where they are, andonly where they are, there is God. 

There are states of falsehood and wickedness so monstrous, that, to usethe language of Eastern mythology, the Destroyer God is greater than theCreator or the Preserver, and no good can be conceived so great as thedestruction of the existing evil. But ordinarily in human affairsdestruction and creation should go hand in hand; as the evergreen shrubsof our gardens do not cast their old leaves till the young ones areready to supply their place. Great as is the falsehood of Mr. Newman'ssystem, it would be but an unsatisfactory work to clear it away, if wehad no positive truth to offer in its room. But the thousands of goodmen whom it has beguiled, because it professed to meet the earnestcraving of their minds for a restoration of Christ's church with power, need not fear to open their eyes to its hollowness; like the falsemiracles of fraud or sorcery, it is but the counterfeit of a real truth. The restoration of the church, is, indeed, the best consummation of allour prayers, and all our labours; it is not a dream, not a prospect tobe seen only in the remotest distance; it is possible, it lies very nearus; with God's blessing it is in the power of this very generation tobegin and make some progress in the work. If the many good, and wise, and influential laymen of our Church would but awake to their trueposition and duties, and would labour heartily to procure for the churcha living organization and an effective government, in both, of which thelaity should be essential members, then, indeed, the church would becomea reality[11]. This is not Erastianism, or rather, it is not what iscommonly cried down under that name; it is not the subjection of thechurch to the state, which, indeed, would be a most miserable and mostunchristian condition; but it would be the deliverance of the church, and its exaltation to its own proper sovereignty. The members of oneparticular profession are most fit to administer a system in part, mostunfit to legislate for it or to govern it: we could ill spare theability and learning of our lawyers, but we surely should not wish tohave none but lawyers concerned even, in the administration of justice, much less to have none but lawyers in the government or in parliament. What is true of lawyers with regard to the state, is no less true of theclergy with regard to the church; indispensable as ministers andadvisers, they cannot, without great mischief, act as sole judges, solelegislators, sole governors. And this is a truth so palpable, that theclergy, by pressing such a claim, merely deprive the church of itsjudicial, legislative, and executive functions; whilst the common senseof the church will not allow them to exercise these powers, and, whilstthey assert that no one else may exercise them, the result is, that theyare not exercised at all, and the essence of the church is destroyed. 

[Footnote 11: The famous saying, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus, " is, inits idea, a most divine truth; historically and in fact it may be, andoften has been, a practical falsehood. If the truths of Christ'sreligion were necessarily accessible only to the members of some visiblechurch, then it would be true always, inasmuch as to be out of thechurch would then be the same thing as to be without Christ; and, as asociety, the church ought so to attract to itself all goodness, and byits internal organization, so to encourage all goodness, that nothingwould be without its pale but extreme wickedness, or extreme ignorance;and he who were voluntarily to forfeit its spiritual advantages, wouldbe guilty of moral suicide; so St. Paul calls the church the pillar andground of truth; that is, it was so in its purpose and idea; and hetherefore conjures Timothy to walk warily in it, and to take heed thatwhat ought to be the pillar and ground of truth should not be profanedby fables, and so be changed into a pillar of falsehood. But to sayuniversally, as an historical fact, that "extra ecclesiam nulla salus, "may be often to utter one of the worst of falsehoods. A ferry is set upto transport men over an unfordable river, and it might be truly saidthat "extra navem nulla salus;" there is no other safe way, speakinggenerally, of getting over; but the ferryman has got the plague, and ifyou go in the boat with him, you will catch it and die. In despair, aman plunges into the water, and swims across; would not the ferryman beguilty of a double falsehood who should call out to this man, "extranavem nulla salus, " insisting that he had not swum over, when he had, and saying that his boat would have carried him safely, whereas it wouldhave killed him?]

The first step towards the restoration of the church seems to be therevival of the order of deacons; which might be effected without anyother change in our present system than a repeal of all laws, canons, orcustoms which prohibit a deacon from following a secular calling, whichconfer on him any civil exemptions, or subject him to any civildisqualifications. The Ordination Service, with the subscription to theArticles, would remain perfectly unaltered; and as no deacon can holdany benefice, it is manifest that the proposed measure would in no wayinterfere with the rights or duties of the order of presbyters, orpriests, which would remain precisely what they are at present. But thebenefit in large towns would be enormous, if, instead of the presentsystem of district visiting by private individuals, excellent as that iswhere there is nothing better, we could have a large body of deacons, the ordained ministers of the church, visiting the sick, managingcharitable subscriptions, and sharing with their presbyter in thosestrictly clerical duties, which now, in many cases, are too much for thehealth and powers of the strongest. Yet a still greater advantage wouldbe found in the link thus formed between the clergy and laity by therevival of an order appertaining in a manner to both. Nor would it be alittle thing that many who now become teachers in some dissentingcongregation, not because they differ from our Articles, or dislike ourLiturgy, but because they cannot afford to go to the universities, andhave no prospect of being maintained by the church, if they were to giveup their secular callings, would, in all human probability, be glad tojoin the church, as deacons, and would thus be subject to herauthorities, and would be engaged in her service, instead of beingaliens to her, if not enemies. 

When we look at the condition of our country: at the poverty andwretchedness of so large a portion of the working classes; at theintellectual and moral evils which certainly exist among the poor, butby no means amongst the poor only; and when we witness the many partialattempts to remedy these evils--attempts benevolent indeed and wise, sofar as they go, but utterly unable to strike to the heart of themischief; can any Christian doubt that here is the work for the churchof Christ to do; that none else can do it; and that with the blessing ofher Almighty Head she can? Looking upon the chaos around us, one poweralone can reduce it into order, and fill it with light and life. Anddoes he really apprehend the perfections and high calling of Christ'schurch; does he indeed fathom the depths of man's wants, or has helearnt to rise to the fulness of the stature of their divine remedy, whocomes forward to preach to us the necessity of apostolical succession?Grant even that it was of divine appointment, still as it isdemonstrably and palpably unconnected with holiness, as it would be amere positive and ceremonial ordinance, it cannot be the point of mostimportance to insist on; even if it be a sin to neglect this, there areso many far weightier matters equally neglected, that it would beassuredly no Christian prophesying which were to strive to direct ourchief attention to this. But the wholly unmoral character of thisdoctrine, which if it were indeed of God, would make it a singlemysterious exception to all the other doctrines of the Gospel, is, Godbe thanked, not more certain than its total want of external evidence;the Scripture disclaims it, Christ himself condemns it. 

I have written at considerable length: yet so vast is the subject, thatI may seem to some to have written superficially, and to have left mystatements without adequate support. I can only say that no oneparagraph has been written hastily, nor in fact is there one thesubstance of which has not been for several years in my mind; indeed, inmany instances, not only the substance, but the proofs in detail havebeen actually written: but to have inserted them here would have beenimpracticable, as they would have been in themselves a volume. Neitherhave I knowingly remained in ignorance of any argument which may havebeen used in defence of Mr. Newman's system; I have always desired toknow what he and his friends say, and on what grounds they say it;although, as I have not read the Tracts for the Times regularly, I mayhave omitted something which it would have been important to notice. Finally, in naming Mr. Newman as the chief author of the system which Ihave been considering, I have in no degree wished to make the questionpersonal; but Mr. Percival's letter authorizes us to consider him as oneof the authors of it; and as I have never had any personal acquaintancewith him, I could mention his name with no shock to any private feelingseither in him or in myself. But I have spoken of him simply as themaintainer of certain doctrines, not as maintaining them in anyparticular manner, far less as actuated by any particular motives. Ibelieve him to be in most serious error; I believe his system to be sodestructive of Christ's church, that I earnestly pray, and would labourto the utmost of my endeavours for its utter overthrow: but on the otherhand, I will not be tempted to confound the authors of the system withthe system itself; for I know that the most mischievous errors have beenpromulgated by men who yet have been neither foolish nor wicked; and Inothing doubt that there are many points in Mr. Newman, in which I mightlearn truth from his teaching, and should be glad if I could come nearhim in his practice. 

NOTE. 

In order to prevent the possibility of misunderstanding, it is proper torepeat what has been often said by others, that the English word"priest" has two significations, --the one according to its etymology, through the French _prêtre_, or _prestre_, and the Latin _presbyterus_, from the Greek [Greek: presbuteros]; in which sense it is used in ourLiturgy and Rubrics, and signifies merely "one belonging to the order ofPresbyters, " as distinguished from the other two orders of bishops anddeacons. But the other signification of the word "priest, " and which weuse, as I think, more commonly, is the same with the meaning of theLatin word _sacerdos_, and the Greek word [Greek: iepeus], and means, "one who stands as a mediator between God and the people, and bringsthem to God by the virtue of certain ceremonial acts which he performsfor them, and which they could not perform for themselves withoutprofanation, because they are at a distance from God, and cannot, intheir own persons, venture to approach towards him. " In this sense ofthe word "priest, " the term is not applied to the ministers of theChristian church, either by the Scripture, or by the authorizedformularies of the Church of England; although, in the other sense, assynonymous with Presbyters, it is used in our Prayer Book repeatedly. Ofcourse, not one word of what I have written is meant to deny thelawfulness and importance of the order of Presbyters in the church; Ihave only spoken against a priesthood, in the other sense of the word, in which a "priest" means "a mediator between God and man;" in thatsense, in short, in which the word is not a translation of [Greek:presbuteros], but [iereus]. 

LECTURE I. 

 * * * * *

GENESIS iii. 22. 

_And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to knowgood and evil_. 

This is declared to be man's condition after the Fall. I will notattempt to penetrate into that which is not to be entered into, nor topretend to discover all that may be concealed beneath the outward, andin many points clearly parabolical, form of the account of man'stemptation and sin. But that condition to which his sin brought him isour condition; with that, undoubtedly, we are concerned; that must bethe foundation of all sound views of human nature; the double factemployed in the word fall is of the last importance; the fact on the onehand of our present nature being evil, the fact on the other hand thatthis present nature is not our proper nature; that the whole business ofour lives is to cast it off, and to return to that better and holynature, which, in truth, although not in fact, is the proper natureof man. 

All individual experience, then, and all history begins in somethingwhich is evil; all our course, whether as individuals or as nations, isa progress, an advance, a leaving behind us something bad, and a goingforwards towards something that is good. But individual experience, andhistory apart from Christianity, would make us regard this progress asfearfully uncertain. Clear it is that we are in an evil case; we havelost our way; we are like men who are bewildered in those endlessforests of reeds which line some of the great American rivers; if westay where we are, the venomous snakes may destroy us; or the deadlymarsh air when night comes on will be surely fatal; it is death toremain, but yet if we move, we know not what way will lead us out, andit may be that, while seeming to advance, we shall but be going roundand round, and shall at last find ourselves hard by the place from whichwe set out in the beginning. Nay, we may even feel a doubt, --a doubt, Isay, though not a reasonable belief, --but a doubt which at times wouldpress us sorely, whether the tangled thicket in which we are placed hasany end at all; whether our fond notions of a clear and open space, apure air, and a fruitful and habitable country, are not altogethermerely imaginary; whether the whole world be not such a region of deathas the spot in which we are actually prisoned; whether there remains anything for us, but to curse our fate, and lie down and die. Under suchcircumstances, although we should admire the spirit which hoped againsthope; which would make an effort for deliverance; which would, at anyrate, flee from the actual evil, although, other evil might receive himafter all his struggles; yet we could forgive those who yielded at onceto their fate, and who sat down quietly to wait for their death, withoutthe unavailing labour of a struggle to avoid it. 

But when the declaration has been made to us by God himself, that thisdismal swamp in which we are prisoners is but an infinitely smallportion of his universe, that there do exist all those goodly formswhich we fancied; and more, when God declares too that we were in thefirst instance designed to enjoy them; that our error brought us intothe thicket, having been once out of it; that we may escape from itagain; nay, much more still, when He shows us the true path to escape, and tells us, that the obstacles in our way have been cleared, and thathe will give us strength to accomplish, the task of escaping, and willguide us that we do not miss the track; then what shall we say to thosewho insist upon, remaining where they are, but that they are eitherinfatuated, or indolent and cowardly even to insanity; that they arerefusing certain salvation, and are, by their own act, giving themselvesover to inevitable death. 

This, then, is the truth taught us by the doctrine of the Fall; not somuch that it is our certain destruction to remain where we are, for thatour own sense and reason declare to us, if we will but listen to them;but that our present position is not that for which God designed us, andthat to rest satisfied with it is not a yielding to an unavoidablenecessity, but the indolently or madly shrinking from the effort whichwould give us certain deliverance. 

Now it is a part of our present evil condition from which we mustescape, that we know good and evil. We are in the world where evilexists within us, and about us; we cannot but know it. True it is, thatit was our misfortune to become acquainted with it; this noisomewilderness of reeds, this reeking swamp; it would have been far happierfor us, no doubt, had we never become aware of their existence. But thatwish is now too late. We are in the midst of this dismal place, and thequestion now is, how to escape from it. We may shut our eyes, and say wewill not see objects so unsightly; but what avails it, if the marshpoison finds its way by other senses, if we cannot but draw it in withour breath, and so we must die? And such is the case of those who nowin this present world confound ignorance with innocence. This is a fatalmistaking of our present condition for our past; there was a time whento the human race ignorance was innocence; but now it is only folly andsin. For as I supposed that a man lost in one of those noxious swampsmight shut his eyes, and so keep himself in some measure in ignorance, yet the poison would be taken in with his breath, and so he would die:even thus, whilst we would fain shut the eyes of our understanding, andwould so hope to be in safety, our passions are all the time alive andactive, and they catch the poison of the atmosphere around us, and weare not innocent, but foolishly wicked. 

We must needs consider this carefully; for, to say nothing of widerquestions of national importance, who that sees before him, as we mustsee it, the gradual change from childhood to boyhood, who that seesadded knowledge often accompanied with added sin, can help wishing thatthe earlier ignorance of evil might still be continued; and fancyingthat knowledge is at best but a doubtful blessing?

But our path is not backwards, but onwards. Israel in the desert washungry and thirsty, while in Egypt he had eaten bread to the full;Israel in the desert saw a wide waste of sand, or sandy rock, aroundhim, while in Egypt he had dwelt in those green pastures and wateredgardens to which the Nile had given freshness and life. But thatwilderness is his appointed way to Canaan; its dreariness must beexchanged for the hills and valleys of Canaan, and must not drive himback again to the low plain of Egypt. There is a moral wilderness whichlies in the early part of our Christian course; but we must not hope toescape from it but by penetrating through it to its furthest side. 

Undoubtedly this place, and other similar places, which receive us whenwe have quitted the state of childhood, and before our characters areformed in manhood, do partake somewhat of the character of thewilderness; and it is not unnatural that many should shrink back fromthem in fear. We see but too often the early beauty of the charactersadly marred, its simplicity gone, its confidence chilled, itstenderness hardened; where there was gentleness, we see roughness andcoarseness; where there was obedience, we find murmuring, and self-will, and pride; where there was a true and blameless conversation, we findnow something of falsehood, something of profaneness, something ofimpurity. I can well conceive what it must be to a parent to see hischild return from school, for the first time, with the marks of thisgrievous change upon him: I can well conceive how bitterly he mustregret having ever sent him to a place of so much, danger; how fondly hemust look back to the days of his early innocence. And if a parent feelsthus, what must be our feelings, seeing that this evil has been wroughthere? Are we not as those who, when pretending to give a wholesomedraught, have mixed the cup with poison? How can we go on upholding asystem, the effects of which appear to be so merely mischievous?

Believe me, that such questions must and ought to present themselves tothe mind of every thinking man who is concerned in the management of aschool: and I do think that we could not answer them satisfactorily, that our work would absolutely be unendurable, if we did not bear inmind that our eyes should look forward, and not backward; if we did notremember that the victory of fallen man is to be sought for, not ininnocence, but in tried virtue. Comparing only the state of a boy afterhis first half-year, or year, at school, with his earlier state as achild, and our reflections on the evil of our system would be bitterindeed; but when we compare a boy's state after his first half-year, oryear, at school, with what it is afterwards; when we see the cloudsagain clearing off; when we find coarseness succeeded again by delicacy;hardness and selfishness again broken up, and giving place to affectionand benevolence; murmuring and self-will exchanged for humility andself-denial; and the profane, or impure, or false tongue, uttering againonly the words of truth and purity; and when we see that all these goodthings are now, by God's grace, rooted in the character; that they havebeen tried, and grown up amidst the trial; that the knowledge of evilhas made them hate it the more, and be the more aware of it; then we canlook upon our calling with patience, and even with thankfulness; we seethat the wilderness has been gone through triumphantly, and that itsdangers have hardened and strengthened the traveller for all hisremaining pilgrimage. 

For the truth is, that to the knowledge of good and evil we are born;and it must come upon us sooner or later. In the common course ofthings, it comes about that age with which we are here most concerned. Ido not mean that there are not faults in early childhood--we know thatthere are;--but we know also that with the strength and rapid growth ofboyhood there is a far greater development of these faults, andparticularly far less of that submissiveness which belonged naturally tothe helplessness of mere childhood. I suppose that, by an extreme care, the period of childhood might be prolonged considerably; but still itmust end; and the knowledge of good and evil, in its full force, mustcome. I believe that this must be; I believe that no care can preventit, and that an extreme attempt at carefulness, whilst it could notkeep off the disorder, would weaken the strength, of the constitution tobear it. But yet you should never forget, and I should never forget, that although the evils of schools in some respects must be, yet, inproportion as they exceed what must be, they do become at oncemischievous and guilty. And such, or even worse, is the mischief when, with the evil which must be, there is not the good which ought to be;for, remember, our condition is to know good and evil. If we know onlyevil, it is the condition of hell; and therefore, if schools present anunmixed experience, if there is temptation in abundance, but no supportagainst temptation, and no examples of overcoming it; if some are losingtheir child's innocence, but none, or very few, are gaining a man'svirtue; are we in a wholesome state then? or can we shelter ourselvesunder the excuse that our evil is unavoidable, that we do but afford, ina mild form, the experience which must be learned sooner or later? It ishere that we must be acquitted or condemned. I can bear to see theoverclouding of childish simplicity, if there is a reasonable hope thatthe character so clouded for a time will brighten again into Christianholiness. But if we do not see this, if innocence is exchanged only forvice, then we have not done our part, then the evil is not unavoidable, but our sin: and we may be assured, that for the souls so lost, therewill be an account demanded hereafter both of us and you. 

LECTURE II. 

 * * * * *

1 CORINTHIANS xiii. 11. 

_When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, Ithought as a child; but when I became a man, I put awaychildish things_. 

Taking the Apostle's words literally, it might appear that no words inthe whole range of Scripture were less applicable to the circumstancesof this particular congregation: for they speak of childhood and ofmanhood; and as all of us have passed the one, so a very largeproportion of us have not yet arrived at the other. But when we considerthe passage a little more carefully, we shall see that this would be avery narrow and absurd objection. Neither the Apostle, nor any one else, has ever stepped directly from childhood into manhood; it was hispurpose here only to notice the two extreme points of the change whichhad taken place in him, passing over its intermediate stages; but he, like all other men, must have gone through those stages. There must havebeen a time in his life, as in all ours, when his words, his thoughts, and his understanding were neither all childish, nor all manly: theremust have been a period, extending over some years, in which they weregradually becoming the one less and less, and the other more and more. And as it suited the purposes of his comparison to look at the change inhimself only when it was completed, so it will suit our object here toregard it while in progress, to consider what it is, to ask the twogreat questions, how far it can be hastened, and how far it ought tobe hastened. 

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, Ithought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childishthings. " It will be seen at once, that when the Apostle speaks ofthought and understanding, ([Greek: erronoun elogizomeaen], ) he does notmean the mere intellect but all the notions, feelings, and desires ofour minds, which partake of an intellectual and of a moral charactertogether. He is comparing what we should call the whole nature andcharacter of childhood with those of manhood. Let us see, for a moment, in what they most strikingly differ. 

Our Lord's well-known words suggest a difference in the first place, which is in favour of childhood. When he says, "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye can in no case enter into the kingdomof heaven, " he must certainly ascribe some one quality to childhood, inwhich manhood is generally deficient. And the quality which he means isclearly humility; or to speak perhaps more correctly, teachableness. Itis impossible that a child can have that confidence in himself, whichdisposes him to be his own guide. He must of necessity lean on others, he must follow others, and therefore he must believe others. There is inhis mind, properly speaking, nothing which can be called prejudice; hewill not as yet refuse to listen, as thinking that he knows better thanhis adviser. One feeling, therefore, essential to the perfection ofevery created and reasonable being, childhood has by the very law of itsnature; a child cannot help believing that there are some who aregreater, wiser, better than himself, and he is disposed to followtheir guidance. 

This sense of comparative weakness is founded upon truth, for a childis of course unfit to guide himself. Without noticing mere bodilyhelplessness, a child knows scarcely what is good and what is evil; hisdesires for the highest good are not yet in existence; his moral sensealtogether is exceedingly weak, and would yield readily to the firsttemptation. And, because those higher feelings, which are the greatcheck to selfishness, have not yet arisen within him, the selfishinstinct, connected apparently with all animal life, is exceedinglypredominant in him. If a child then on the one hand be teachable, yet heis at the same time morally weak and ignorant, and thereforeextremely selfish. 

It is also a part of the nature of childhood to be the slave of presentimpulses. A child is not apt to look backwards or forwards, to reflector to calculate. In this also he differs entirely from the great qualitywhich befits man as an eternal being, the being able to look beforeand after. 

Not to embarrass ourselves with too many points, we may be content withthese four characteristics of childhood, teachableness, ignorance, selfishness, and living only for the present. In the last three ofthese, the perfect man should put away childish things; in the firstpoint, or teachableness, while he retained it in principle, he shouldmodify it in its application. For while modesty, humility, and areadiness to learn, are becoming to men no less than to children; yet itshould be not a simple readiness to follow others, but only to followthe wise and good; not a sense of utter helplessness which catches atthe first stay, whether sound or brittle; but such a consciousness ofweakness and imperfection, as makes us long to be strengthened by Himwho is almighty, to be purified by Him who is all pure. 

I said, and it is an obvious truth, that the change from childhood tomanhood is gradual; there is a period in our lives, of several years, in which we are, or should be, slowly exchanging the qualities of onestate for those of the other. During this intermediate state, then, weshould expect to find persons become less teachable, less ignorant, lessselfish, less thoughtless. "Less teachable, " I would wish to mean, inthe sense of being "less indiscriminately teachable;" but as the eviland the good are, in human things, ever mixed up together, we may beobliged to mean "less teachable" simply. And, to say the very truth, ifI saw in a young man the changes from childhood in the three otherpoints, if I found him becoming wiser, and less selfish, and morethoughtful, I should not be very much disturbed if I found him for atime less teachable also. For whilst he was really becoming wiser andbetter, I should not much wonder if the sense of improvement rather thanof imperfection possessed him too strongly; if his confidence in himselfwas a little too over-weening. Let him go on a little farther in life, and if he really does go on improving in wisdom and goodness, thisover-confidence will find its proper level. He will perceive not onlyhow much he is doing, or can do, but how much there is which he does notdo, and cannot. To a thoughtful mind added years can scarcely fail toteach, humility. And in this the highest wisdom of manhood may beresembling more and more the state of what would be perfect childhood, that is, not simply teachableness, but tractableness with respect towhat was good and true, and to that only. 

But the danger of the intermediate state between childhood and manhoodis too often this, that whilst in the one point of teachableness, thechange runs on too fast, in the other three, of wisdom, ofunselfishness, and of thoughtfulness, it proceeds much too slowly: thatthe faults of childhood thus remain in the character, whilstthat quality by means of which these faults are meant to becorrected, --namely, teachableness, --is at the same time diminishing. Now, teachableness as an instinct, if I may call it so, diminishesnaturally with the consciousness of growing strength. By strength, Imean strength of body, no less than strength of mind, so closely are ourbody and mind connected with, each other. The helplessness of childhood, which presses upon it every moment, the sense of inability to avoid orresist danger, which makes the child run continually to his nurse or tohis mother for protection, cannot but diminish, by the mere growth ofthe bodily powers. The boy feels himself to be less helpless than thechild, and in that very proportion he is apt to become less teachable. As this feeling of decreased helplessness changes into a sense ofpositive vigour and power, and as this vigour and power confer animportance on their possessor, which is the case especially at schools, so self-confidence must in one point at least, arise in the place ofconscious weakness; and as this point is felt to be more important, sowill the self-confidence be likely to extend itself more and more overthe whole character. 

And yet, I am bound to say, that, in general, the teachableness of youthis, after all, much greater than we might at first sight fancy. Alongwith much self-confidence in many things, it is rare, I think, to findin a young man a deliberate pride that rejects advice and instruction, on the strength of having no need for them. And therefore, the faults ofboyhood and youth are more owing, to my mind, to the want of change inthe other points of the childish character, than to the too great changein this. The besetting faults of youth appear to me to arise mainly fromits retaining too often the ignorance, selfishness, and thoughtlessnessof a child, and having arrived at the same time at a degree of bodilyvigour and power, equal, or only a very little inferior, to thoseof manhood. 

And in this state of things, the questions become of exceeding interest, whether the change from childhood to manhood can be hastened. That itought to be hastened, appears to me to be clear; hastened, I mean, fromwhat it is actually, because in this respect, we do not grow in generalfast enough; and the danger of over-growth is, therefore, small. Besides, where change of one sort is going on very rapidly; where thelimbs are growing and the bones knitting more firmly, where the strengthof bodily endurance, as well as of bodily activity, is daily becominggreater; it is self-evident that, if the inward changes which ought toaccompany these outward ones are making no progress, there cannot but bederangement and deformity in the system. And, therefore, when I lookaround, I cannot but wish generally that the change from childhood tomanhood in the three great points of wisdom, of unselfishness, and ofthoughtfulness, might be hastened from its actual rate of progress inmost instances. 

But then comes the other great question, "Can it be hastened, and if itcan, how is it to be done?" "Can it be hastened" means, of course, canit be hastened healthfully and beneficially, consistently with the duedevelopment of our nature in its after stages, from life temporal tolife eternal? For as the child should grow up into the man, so alsothere is a term of years given in which, according to God's will, thenatural man should grow up into the spiritual man; and we must not sopress the first change as to make it interfere with the wholesomeworking of the second. The question then is, really, can the changefrom childhood to manhood be hastened in the case of boys and young menin general from its actual rate of progress in ordinary cases, withoutinjury to the future excellence and full development of the man? thatis, without exhausting prematurely the faculties either of body or mind. 

And this is a very grave question, one of the deepest interest for usand for you. For us, as, according to the answer to be given to it, should depend our whole conduct and feelings towards you in the matterof your education; for you, inasmuch as it is quite clear, that if thechange from childhood to manhood can be hastened safely, it ought to behastened; and that it is a sin in every one not to try to hasten it:because, to retain the imperfections of childhood when you can get ridof them, is in itself to forfeit the innocence of childhood; to exchangethe condition of the innocent infant whom Christ blessed, for that ofthe unprofitable servant whom Christ condemned. For with the growth ofour bodies evil will grow in us unavoidably; and then, if we are notpositively good, we are, of necessity, positively sinners. 

We will consider, then, what can be done to hasten this change in ushealthfully; whether we can grow in wisdom, in love, and inthoughtfulness, faster in youth, than we now commonly do grow: andwhether any possible danger can be connected with such increasedexertion. This shall be our subject for consideration next Sunday. Meantime, let it be understood, that however extravagant it might be tohope for any general change in any moral point, as the direct result ofsetting truth before the mind; yet, that it never can be extravagant tohope for a practical result in some one or two particular cases; andthat, if one or two even be impressed practically with what they hear, the good achieved, or, rather, the good granted us by God, is reallybeyond our calculation. It is so strictly; for who can worthilycalculate the value of a single human soul? but it is so in this sensealso, that the amount of general good which may be done in the end bydoing good first in particular cases is really more than we canestimate. It was thus that Christ's original eleven apostles became, inthe end, the instruments of the salvation of millions: and it is on thisconsideration that we never need despair of the most extensiveimprovements in society, if we are content to wait God's appointed timeand order, and look for the salvation of the many as the gradual fruitof the salvation of a few. 

LECTURE III. 

 * * * * *

1 CORINTHIANS xiii. 11. 

_When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, Ithought as a child; but when I became a man, I put awaychildish things_. 

After having noticed last Sunday what were those particular points inchildhood, which in manhood should be put away, and having observed thatthis change cannot take place all at once, but gradually, during aperiod of several years, I proposed to consider, as on this day, whetherit were possible to hasten this change, that is, whether it could behastened without injury to the future development of the character; forundoubtedly, there is such, a thing in minds, as well as in bodies, asprecocious growth; and although it is not so frequent as precociousgrowth in the body, nor by any means so generally regarded as an evil, yet it is really a thing to be deprecated; and we ought not to adoptsuch measures as might be likely to occasion it. 

Now I believe the only reason which could make it supposed to bepossible that there could be danger in hastening this change, is drawnfrom the observation of what takes place sometimes with regard tointellectual advancement. It is seen that some young men of greatambition, or remarkable love of knowledge, do really injure theirhealth, and exhaust their minds, by an excess of early study. I alwaysgrieve over such cases exceedingly; not only for the individual's sakewho is the sufferer, but also for the mischievous effect of his example. It affords a pretence to others to justify their own want of exertion;and those to whom it is in reality the least dangerous, are always thevery persons who seem to dread it the most. But we should clearlyunderstand, that this excess of intellectual exertion at an early age, is by no means the same thing with hastening the change fromchildishness to manliness. We are all enough aware, in common life, thata very clever and forward boy may be, in his conduct, exceedingchildish; that those whose talents and book-knowledge are by no meansremarkable, may be, in their conduct, exceedingly manly. Examples ofboth these truths instantly present themselves to my memory, and perhapsmay do so to some of yours. I may say farther, that some whose changefrom childhood to manhood had been, in St. Paul's sense of the terms, the most remarkably advanced, were so far from being distinguished fortheir cleverness or proficiency in their school-work, that it wouldalmost seem as if their only remaining childishness had been displayedthere. What I mean, therefore, by the change from childhood to manhood, is altogether distinct from a premature advance in book-knowledge, andinvolves in it nothing of that over-study which is dreaded as soinjurious. 

Yet it is true that I described the change from childhood to manhood, asa change from ignorance to wisdom. I did so, certainly; but yet, rare asknowledge is, wisdom is rarer; and knowledge, unhappily, can existwithout wisdom, as wisdom can exist with a very inferior degree ofknowledge. We shall see this, if we consider what we mean by knowledge;and, without going into a more general definition of it, let us see whatwe mean by it here. We mean by it, either a knowledge of points ofscholarship, of grammar, and matters connected with grammar; or aknowledge of history and geography; or a knowledge of mathematics: or, it may be, of natural history; or, if we use the term, "knowledge of theworld, " then we mean, I think, a knowledge of points of manner andfashion; such a knowledge as may save us from exposing ourselves intrifling things, by awkwardness or inexperience. Now the knowledge ofnone of these things brings us of necessity any nearer to realthoughtfulness, such as alone gives wisdom, than the knowledge of awell-contrived game. Some of you, probably, well know that there aregames from which chance is wholly excluded, and skill in which is onlythe result of much thought and calculation. There is no doubt that thegame of chess may properly be called an intellectual study; but why doesit not, and cannot, make any man wise? Because, in the first place, thecalculations do but respect the movements of little pieces of wood orivory, and not those of our own minds and hearts; and, again, they arecalculations which have nothing to do whatever with our being bettermen, or worse, with our pleasing God or displeasing him. And what istrue of this game, is true no less of the highest calculations ofAstronomy, of the profoundest researches into language; nay, what mayseem stranger still, it is often true no less of the deepest study evenof the actions and principles of man's nature; and, strangest of all, itmay be, and is often true, also, of the study of the very Scriptureitself; and that, not only of the incidental points of Scripture, itsantiquities, chronology, and history, but of its very most divinetruths, of man's justification and of God's nature. Here, indeed, we areconsidering about things where wisdom, so to speak, sits enshrined. Weare very near her, we see the place where she abides; but her very selfwe obtain not. And why?--but because, in the most solemn study, no lessthan in the lightest, our own moral state may be set apart from ourconsideration; we may be unconscious all the while of our great want;and forgetting our great business, to be reconciled to God, and to dohis will: for wisdom, to speak properly, is to us nothing else than thetrue answer to the Philippian jailor's question, "What must I do tobe saved?"

Now then, as knowledge of all kinds may be gained without beingreceived, or meant at all to be applied, as the answer to this question, so it may be quite distinct from wisdom. And when I use the termthoughtfulness, as opposed to a child's carelessness, I mean it toexpress an anxiety for the obtaining of this wisdom. And farther, I donot see how this wisdom, or this thoughtfulness, can be premature in anyone; or how it can exhaust before their time any faculties, whether ofbody or mind. This requires no sitting up late at night, no giving up ofhealthful exercise; it brings no headaches, no feverishness, no strongexcitement at first, to be followed by exhaustion afterwards. Hear howit is described by one who spoke of it from experience. "The wisdom thatis from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to beentreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and withouthypocrisy. " There is surely nothing of premature exhaustionconnected-with any one of these things. 

Or, if we turn to the third point of change from childhood to aChristian manhood, the change from selfishness to unselfishness, neithercan we find any possible danger in hastening this. This cannot hurt ourhealth or strain our faculties; it can but make life at every age morepeaceful and more happy. Nor indeed do I suppose that any one couldfancy that such a change was otherwise than wholesome at the earliestpossible period. 

There may remain, however, a vague notion, that generally, if what wemean by an early change from childishness to manliness be that we shouldbecome religious, then, although it may not exhaust the powers, orinjure the health, yet it would destroy the natural liveliness andgaiety of youth, and by bringing on a premature seriousness of mannerand language, would be unbecoming and ridiculous. Now, in the firstplace, there is a great deal of confusion and a great deal of folly inthe common notions of the gaiety of youth. If gaiety mean real happinessof mind, I do not believe that there is more of it in youth than inmanhood; if for this reason only, that the temper in youth beingcommonly not yet brought into good order, irritation and passion arefelt, probably, oftener than in after life, and these are sad drawbacks, as we all know, to a real cheerfulness of mind. And of the outwardgaiety of youth, there is a part also which is like the gaiety of adrunken man; which is riotous, insolent, and annoying to others; which, in short, is a folly and a sin. There remains that which strictlybelongs to youth, partly physically--the lighter step and the liveliermovement of the growing and vigorous body; partly from circumstances, because a young person's parents or friends stand between him and manyof the cares of life, and protect him from feeling them altogether;partly from the abundance of hope which belongs to the beginning ofevery thing, and which continually hinders the mind from dwelling onpast pain. And I know not which of these causes of gaiety would be takenaway or lessened by the earlier change from childhood to manhood. Trueit is, that the question, "What must I do to be saved?" is a grave one, and must be considered seriously; but I do not suppose that any oneproposes that a young person should never be serious at all. True it is, again, that if we are living in folly and sin, this question may be apainful one; we might be gayer for a time without it. But, then, thematter is, what is to become of us if we do not think of beingsaved?--shall we be saved without thinking of it? And what is it to benot saved but lost? I cannot pretend to say that the thought of Godwould not very much disturb the peace and gaiety of an ungodly andsinful mind; that it would not interfere with the mirth of the bully, orthe drunkard, or the reveller, or the glutton, or the idler, or thefool. It would, no doubt; just as the hand that was seen to write on thewall threw a gloom over the guests at Belshazzar's festival. I nevermeant or mean to say, that the thought of God, or that God himself, canbe other than a plague to those who do not love Him. The thought of Himis their plague here; the sight of Him will be their judgment for ever. But I suppose the point is, whether the thought of Him would cloud thegaiety of those who were striving to please Him. It would cloud it asmuch, and be just as unwelcome and no more, as will be the very actualpresence of our Lord to the righteous, when they shall see Him as He is. Can that which we know to be able to make old age, and sickness, andpoverty, many times full of comfort, --can that make youth and healthgloomy? When to natural cheerfulness and sanguineness, are added aconsciousness of God's ever present care, and a knowledge of his richpromises, are we likely to be the more sad or the more unhappy?

What reason, then, is there for any one's not anticipating the commonprogress of Christian manliness, and hastening; to exchange, as I saidbefore, ignorance for wisdom, selfishness for unselfishness, carelessness for thoughtfulness? I see no reason why we should not; butis there no reason why we should? You are young, and for the most partstrong and healthy; I grant that, humanly speaking, the chances of earlydeath to any particular person among you are small. But still, considering what life is, even to the youngest and strongest, it doesseem a fearful risk to be living unredeemed; to be living in that state, that if we should happen to die, (it may be very unlikely, but still itis clearly possible, )--that if we should happen to die, we should bemost certainly lost for ever. Risks, however, we do not mind; thechances, we think, are in our favour, and we will run the hazard. It maybe so; but he who delays to turn to God when the thought has been onceput before him, is incurring something more than a risk. He may not diethese fifty or sixty years; we cannot tell how that may be; but he iscertainly at this very present time hardening his heart, and doingdespite unto the Spirit of Grace. By the very wickedness of putting offturning to God till a future time, he lessens his power of turning toHim ever. This is certain; no one can reject God's call without becomingless likely to hear it when it is made to him again. And thus thelingering wilfully in the evil things of childhood, when we might be atwork in putting them off, and when God calls us to do so, is an infiniterisk, and a certain evil;--an infinite risk, for it is living in such astate that death at any moment would be certain condemnation;--and acertain evil, because, whether we live or not, we are actually raisingup barriers between ourselves and our salvation; we not only do not drawnigh to God, but we are going farther from Him, and lessening our powerof drawing nigh to Him hereafter. 

LECTURE IV. 

 * * * * *

COLOSSIANS i. 9. 

_We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filledwith the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritualunderstanding_. 

This is the first of three verses, all of them forming a part of theEpistle which was read this morning, and containing St. Paul's prayerfor the Colossians in all the several points of Christian excellence. And the first thing which he desires for them, as we have heard, is, that they should be filled with the knowledge of God's will in allwisdom and spiritual understanding; or, as he expresses the same thingto the Ephesians, that they should be not unwise, but understanding whatthe will of the Lord is. He prays for the Colossians that they shouldnot be spiritually foolish, but that they should be spiritually wise. 

The state of spiritual folly is, I suppose, one of the most universalevils in the world. For the number of those who are naturally foolish isexceedingly great; of those, I mean, who understand no worldly thingwell; of those who are careless about everything, carried about by everybreath of opinion, without knowledge, and without principle. But theterm spiritual folly includes, unhappily, a great many more than these;it takes in not those only who are in the common sense of the termfoolish, but a great many who are in the common sense of the termclever, and many who are even in the common sense of the terms, prudent, sensible, thoughtful, and wise. It is but too evident that some of theablest men who have ever lived upon earth, have been in no less a degreespiritually fools. And thus, it is not without much truth that Christianwriters have dwelt upon the insufficiency of worldly wisdom, and havewarned their readers to beware, lest, while professing themselves to bewise, they should be accounted as fools in the sight of God. 

But the opposite to this notion, that those who are, as it were, foolsin worldly matters are wise before God; although this also is true in acertain sense, and under certain peculiar circumstances, yet takengenerally, it is the very reverse of truth; and the careless andincautious language which has been often used on this subject, has beenextremely mischievous. On the contrary, he who is foolish in worldlymatters is likely also to be, and most commonly is, no less foolish inthe things of God. And the opposite belief has arisen mainly from thatstrange confusion between ignorance and innocence, with which manyignorant persons seem to solace themselves. Whereas, if you take away aman's knowledge, you do not bring him to the state of an infant, but tothat of a brute; and of one of the most mischievous and malignant of thebrute creation. For you do not lessen or weaken the man's body bylowering his mind; he still retains his strength and his passions, thepassions leading to self-indulgence, the strength which enables him tofeed them by continued gratification. He will not think it is true toany good purpose; it is very possible to destroy in him the power ofreflection, whether as exercised upon outward things, or upon himselfand his own nature, or upon God. But you cannot destroy the power ofadapting means to ends, nor that of concealing his purposes by fraud orfalsehood; you take only his wisdom, and leave that cunning which marksso notoriously both the savage and the madman. He, then, who is a foolas far as regards earthly things, is much more a fool with regard toheavenly things; he who cannot raise himself even to the lower height, how is he to attain to the higher? he who is without reason andconscience, how shall he be endowed with the spirit of God?

It is my deep conviction and long experience of this truth, which makesme so grieve over a want of interest in your own improvement in humanlearning, whenever I observe it, over the prevalence of a thoughtlessand childish spirit amongst you. I grant that as to the first pointthere are sometimes exceptions to be met with; that is to say, I haveknown persons certainly whose interest in their work here was not great, and their proficiency consequently was small; but who, I do not doubt, were wise unto God. But then these persons, whilst they were indifferentperhaps about their common school-work, were anything but indifferent asto the knowledge of the Bible: there was no carelessness there; but theyread, and read frequently, books of practical improvement, or relatingotherwise to religious matters, such as many, I believe, would find evenless inviting than the books of their common business. So that althoughthere was a neglect undoubtedly of many parts of the school-work, yetthere was no spirit of thoughtlessness or childishness in them, nor ofgeneral idleness; and therefore, although I know that their minds didsuffer and have suffered from their unwise neglect of a part of theirduty, yet there was so much attention bestowed on other parts, and somanifest and earnest a care for the things of God, that it wasimpossible not to entertain for them the greatest respect and regard. These, however, are such rare cases, that it cannot be necessary to domore than thus notice them. But the idleness and want of interest whichI grieve for, is one which extends itself but too impartially toknowledge of every kind: to divine knowledge, as might be expected, evenmore than to human. Those whom we commonly find careless about theirgeneral lessons, are quite as ignorant and as careless about theirBibles; those who have no interest in general literature, in poetry, orin history, or in philosophy, have certainly no greater interest, I donot say in works of theology, but in works of practical devotion, in thelives of holy men, in meditations, or in prayers. Alas, the interest oftheir minds is bestowed on things far lower than the very lowest of allwhich I have named; and therefore, to see them desiring something only alittle higher than their present pursuits, could not but be encouraging;it would, at least, show that the mind was rising upwards. It may, indeed, stop at a point short of the highest, it may learn to loveearthly excellence, and rest there contented, and seek for nothing moreperfect; but that, at any rate, is a future and merely contingent evil. It is better to love earthly excellence than earthly folly; it is farbetter in itself, and it is, by many degrees, nearer to the kingdomof God. 

There is another case, however, which I cannot but think is morefrequent now than formerly; and if it is so, it may be worth while todirect our attention to it. Common idleness and absolute ignorance arenot what I wish to speak of now, but a character advanced above these; acharacter which does not neglect its school-lessons, but really attainsto considerable proficiency in them; a character at once regular andamiable, abstaining from evil, and for evil in its low and grosserforms, having a real abhorrence. What, then, you will say, is wantinghere? I will tell you what seems to be wanting--a spirit of manly, andmuch more of Christian, thoughtfulness. There is quickness andcleverness; much pleasure, perhaps, in distinction, but little inimprovement; there is no desire of knowledge for its own sake, whetherhuman or divine. There is, therefore, but little power of combining anddigesting what is read; and, consequently, what is read passes away, andtakes no root in the mind. This same character shows itself in mattersof conduct; it will adopt, without scruple, the most foolish, commonplace notions of boys, about what is right and wrong; it will not, and cannot, from the lightness of its mind, concern itself seriouslyabout what is evil in the conduct of others, because it takes no regularcare of its own, with reference to pleasing God; it will not do anythinglow or wicked, but it will sometimes laugh at those who do; and it willby no means take pains to encourage, nay, it will sometimes thwart andoppose any thing that breathes a higher spirit, and asserts a more manlyand Christian standard of duty. 

I have thought that this character, with its features more or lessstrongly marked, has shown itself sometimes amongst us, marring the goodand amiable qualities of those in whom we can least bear to see such adefect, because there is in them really so much to interest in theirfavour. Now the number of persons of extraordinary abilities who may behere at any one time can depend on no calculable causes: nor, again, canwe give any reason more than what we call accident, if there were to beamongst us at any one time a number of persons whose whole tendency wasdecidedly to evil. But if, in these respects, the usual average hascontinued, if there is no lack of ability, and nothing like a prevalenceof vice, then we begin anxiously to inquire into the causes, which, while other things remain the same, have led to a different result. Andone cause I do find, which, is certainly capable of producing such aresult: a cause undoubtedly in existence now, and as certainly not inexistence a few years back; nor can I trace any other besides this whichappears likely to have produced the same effect. This cause consists inthe number and character and cheapness, and peculiar mode ofpublication, of the works of amusement of the present day. In all theserespects the change is great, and extremely recent. The works ofamusement published only a very few years since were comparatively fewin number; they were less exciting, and therefore less attractive; theywere dearer, and therefore less accessible; and, not being publishedperiodically, they did not occupy the mind for so long a time, nor keepalive so constant an expectation; nor, by thus dwelling upon the mind, and distilling themselves into it as it were drop by drop, did theypossess it so largely, colouring even, in many instances, its verylanguage, and affording frequent matter for conversation. 

The evil of all these circumstances is actually enormous. The mass ofhuman minds, and much more of the minds of young persons, have no greatappetite for intellectual exercise; but they have some, which by carefultreatment may be strengthened and increased. But here to this weak anddelicate appetite is presented an abundance of the most stimulating andleast nourishing food possible. It snatches it greedily, and is not onlysatisfied, but actually conceives a distaste for anything simpler andmore wholesome. That curiosity which is wisely given us to lead us on toknowledge, finds its full gratification in the details of an excitingand protracted story, and then lies down as it were gorged, and goes tosleep. Other faculties claim their turn, and have it. We know that inyouth the healthy body and lively spirits require exercise, and in thisthey may and ought to be indulged: but the time and interest whichremain over when the body has had its enjoyment, and the mind desiresits share, this has been already wasted and exhausted upon thingsutterly unprofitable: so that the mind goes to its work hurriedly andlanguidly, and feels it to be no more than a burden. The mere lessonsmay be learnt from a sense of duty; but that freshness of power which, in young persons of ability would fasten eagerly upon some one portionor other, of the wide field of knowledge, and there expatiate, drinkingin health and strength to the mind, as surely as the natural exercise ofthe body gives to it bodily vigour, --that is tired prematurely, perverted, and corrupted; and all the knowledge which else it might socovet, it now seems a wearying effort to attain. 

Great and grievous as is the evil, it is peculiarly hard to find theremedy for it. If the books to which I have been alluding were books ofdownright wickedness, we might destroy them wherever we found them; wemight forbid their open circulation; we might conjure you to shun themas you would any other clear sin, whether of word or deed. But they arenot wicked books for the most part; they are of that class which cannotbe actually prohibited; nor can it be pretended that there is a sin inreading them. They are not the more wicked for being published so cheap, and at regular intervals; but yet these two circumstances make them sopeculiarly injurious. All that can be done is to point out the evil;that it is real and serious I am very sure, and its effects are mostdeplorable on the minds of the fairest promise; but the remedy for itrests with yourselves, or rather with each of you individually, so faras he is himself concerned. That an unnatural and constant excitement ofthe mind is most injurious, there is no doubt; that excitement involvesa consequent weakness, is a law of our nature than which none is surer;that the weakness of mind thus produced is and must be adverse to quietstudy and thought, to that reflection which alone is wisdom, is alsoclear in itself, and proved too largely by experience. And that withoutreflection there can be no spiritual understanding, is at once evident;while without spiritual understanding, that is, without a knowledge anda study of God's will, there can be no spiritual life. And thereforechildishness and unthoughtfulness cannot be light evils; and if I haverightly traced the prevalence of these defects to its cause, althoughthat cause may seem to some to be trifling, yet surely it is well tocall your attention to it, and to remind you that in reading works ofamusement, as in every other lawful pleasure, there is and must be anabiding responsibility in the sight of God; that, like other lawfulpleasures, we must beware of excess in it; and not only so, but that ifwe find it hurtful to us, either because we have used it too freely intimes past, or because our nature is too weak to bear it, that then weare bound most solemnly to abstain from it; because, however lawful initself, or to others who can practise it without injury, whatever is tous an hindrance in the way of our intellectual and moral and spiritualimprovement, that is in our case a positive sin. 

LECTURE V. 

 * * * * *

COLOSSIANS i. 9. 

_We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filledwith the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritualunderstanding_. 

These words, on which I spoke last Sunday, appeared to contain so much, which concerns us all so deeply, and to suit the peculiar ease of manyof us here so entirely, that I thought they might well furnish us withmatter for farther consideration to-day. And though I noticed oneparticular cause, which seemed to have acted mischievously, in the lastfew years, upon the growth and freshness of the mind in youth, yet itwould be absurd to suppose that before this cause came into existenceall was well; or that if it could be removed, our progress even inworldly knowledge would henceforth be unimpeded. There are many othercauses no doubt which oppose our growth in worldly wisdom; and stillmore which oppose our growth in the wisdom of God. 

One of these causes meets us at the very beginning; it exists at thisvery moment; it makes it difficult even to gain your attention for whatis to be said. This cause is to be found in the want of sympathy betweenpersons of very different ages, between what must be, therefore, in thecommon course of nature, different degrees of thoughtfulness. It is thewant of sympathy, properly speaking, which creates in these matters adifficulty of understanding; for the attention and memory are alike aptto be careless where the mind is not interested; and how can weunderstand that to which we scarcely listened, and which we imperfectlyremember? Nature herself seems to lead the old and the young twodifferent ways: and when the old call upon the young to be thoughtful, it seems as if they were but calling them to a state contrary to theirnature; and the call is not regarded. 

Is it then that we have here an invincible obstacle, which renders allattempts to inspire thoughtfulness utterly vain? and if it be so, whatuse can there be in dwelling upon it? None, certainly, if it wereactually and in all cases invincible; but if it be every thing short ofinvincible, there is much good in noticing it. There is much good surelyin trying to impress the great truth, that nature must be overcome by amightier power, or we perish. There is much good in meeting and allowingto its full extent what we are so apt in our folly to regard as anexcuse, and which really is the earnest of our condemnation. It is verytrue, and to be allowed to the fullest extent, that it is against thenature of youth in all ordinary cases to be thoughtful; that it is verydifficult for you even to give your attention to serious things whenspoken of, more difficult still to remember them afterwards and always. It is for the very reason because it is so difficult, because it is awork so against nature, to raise the young and careless mind to thethought of God; because it is so certain that, in the common course ofthings, you will not think of Him, but will follow the bent of your ownseveral fancies or desires, that therefore He, who wills in his love tobring us to himself, knowing that without the knowledge of Him we mustperish for ever, was pleased to give his only-begotten Son, thatthrough Him we might overcome nature, and might turn to God and live. 

I wish that I could increase, if it were possible, the sense which, youhave of the difficulty of becoming thoughtful, so that you could but seethat out of this very difficulty, and indissolubly connected with it, comes the grace of Christ's redemption. You have not strength of purposeenough to shake off folly and sin; surely you have not, or else, whyshould Christ have died? It is so hard to come to God; undoubtedly, sohard that no man can come unto God except God will draw him. Natureherself leads us to be careless, our very strength and spirits ofthemselves will not allow us to reflect. Most true; for that which isborn of the flesh, is flesh; and we inherit a nature derived from him inwhom we all die. 

I believe that it is not idle to dwell upon tins; for it is scarcelypossible but that good and earnest resolutions should often enter theminds of many of you; or, if not resolutions, yet at least wishes, wishes chilled but too soon, I fear, by the thought or feeling, thathowever much to will may be present with you, yet how to perform it youfind not. Now, if this true sense of weakness might but lead any one toseek for strength where it may be found, then indeed it would be afeeling no less blessed than true; for it would urge you to seek God'shelp and Christ's redemption, instead of desperately yielding to yourweakness, and so remaining weak for ever. 

You may look at the prospect before you in all its reality: you may seehow much must be given up, how much withstood, bow much, endured; howhard it is to alter old ways, not in itself only, but because the changeattracts attention, and is received, it may be, with doubts as to itssincerity, with irony, and with sneers. There is all this before you: itcannot be denied; it must not be concealed. The way to life is not broadand easy; it is not that way which is most trodden. To pass from what weare to what we may be hereafter, from an earthly nature to an heavenly, cannot be an easy work, to be done at any time, with no effort, with nopain. It is the greatest work which is done in the whole world, it isthe mightiest change; death and birth are, as it were, combined in it;but the Lord of birth and of death is at hand, to enable us to effectit. Think that this is so; and the more you feel how hard a task is setbefore you, the more you will be able to understand the language of joyand thankfulness with which the Scripture speaks of a human soul'sredemption. 

This great work may be wrought for every soul here assembled; the wantof sympathy in sacred and serious things may be changed to sympathy themost intense; the carelessness of fools may be changed into spiritualwisdom. It may be wrought for all; but it is more happy to think that itwill be wrought for some;--for whom, no mortal eye or judgment candiscern; but it will be wrought for some. If many should yield indespair to their enemy, yet some will resist him: if Christ be to manyno more than foolishness, if his name convey nothing more than a vaguesense of something solemn, which passes over the mind for an instant, and then vanishes, yet to some undoubtedly, he will be found to be thewisdom of God, and the power of God. There are some here, we may bequite sure, who will be witnesses for ever to all the world of men andangels, that what truly was impossible to nature, is possible to naturerenewed and strengthened by grace. 

Without such a change, it is vain, I fear, to look for any thing likewisdom or spiritual understanding; for how can such a seed be expectedto grow in a soil so shallow as common thoughtlessness? and how canmerely human motives have force to overcome so strong a tendency ofnature? nay, how can such motives be brought to act upon the mind? forit is absolutely impossible that the middle-aged and the young should bebrought into entire sympathy with each other, unless Christ's love betheir common bond. Human wisdom in advanced life may be, and is topersons of strong faculties of mind, naturally pleasant: but how can itbe made so to persons of ordinary faculties in early youth? There arefaults which society condemns strongly, while the temptation to them inafter life is slight. Persons in middle age may resist these easily, andabhor them sincerely; but how can we make young persons do the same whenthe temptation to commit them is strong, and the condemnation of them bytheir society is either very slight, or does not exist at all? And, therefore, we find that, do what we will, the same faults' continue tobe common in schools, the same faults both of omission and commission;there is the same inherent difficulty of bringing persons of differentages and positions to think and feel alike, unless Christ has becomepossessed of the thoughts and feelings of both, and so they become onewith each other in him. 

But it was our Lord's charge to Peter, "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. " As sure as it is that some who hear me areturned, or turning, or will turn, to God, so sure is it that these, bethey few or many, will do something towards the strengthening of theirbrethren. Whatever good is to be done amongst us on a large scale, itmust be done only in this way, the many half despairing prayer may be, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;" but if any one is moved byChrist's call, and feels within himself that he should like to followChrist, and to be with him always, let him cherish that work of the HolySpirit within him, which has given him if it be only so much of the willto be saved. It is a spark which may be quenched in a moment; in itselfit can give no assurance; but if any one watches it carefully, and praysthat it may live and be kindled into a stronger spark, till at last itbreak out into a flame, then for him it is full of assurance; God hasheard his prayer; and he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, anearnest of his eternal inheritance. Will he not then watch and pray themore anxiously, lest the fruit which, is now partly formed should neverripen? Will he not see and feel that there is some reality in the thingsof God, that strength, and peace, and victory, are not vainly promised?Will he not hold fast the things which he has now not heard only, butknown, lest by any means he should let them slip? May God strengthensuch, whoever they may be, with all the might of his Spirit; and may hebe with them even to the end. 

But for those, --who they are, again, we know not, nor how many; buthere, also, there will too surely be some, --for those who hear now, asthey have often heard before, words which, they scarcely heed, which, have at times partially caught their attention, but have not produced inthem the slightest real effect, for them the words are coming to an end;they will soon be released from the irksome bondage of hearing them; andanother opportunity of grace will have been offered to them in vain. Tomorrow, and the day after, they will walk as they have walked before, the wretched slaves of folly and passion; half despairing prayer maybe, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;" but if any one is movedby Christ's call, and feels within himself that he should like to followChrist, and to be with him always, let him cherish that work of the HolySpirit within him, which has given him if it be only so much of the willto be saved. It is a spark which may be quenched in a moment; in itselfit can give no assurance; but if any one watches it carefully, and praysthat it may live and be kindled into a stronger spark, till at last itbreak out into a flame, then for him it is full of assurance; God hasheard his prayer; and he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, anearnest of his eternal inheritance. Will he not then watch and pray themore anxiously, lest the fruit which is now partly formed should neverripen? Will he not see and feel that there is some reality in the thingsof God, that strength, and peace, and victory, are not vainly promised?Will he not hold fast the things which he has now not heard only, butknown, lest by any means he should let them slip? May God strengthensuch, whoever they may be, with all the might of his Spirit; and may hebe with them even to the end. 

But for those, --who they are, again, we know not, nor how many; buthere, also, there will too surely be some, --for those who hear now, asthey have often heard before, words which they scarcely heed, which haveat times partially caught their attention, but have not produced in themthe slightest real effect, for them the words are coming to an end; theywill soon be released from the irksome bondage of hearing them; andanother opportunity of grace will have been offered to them in vain. Tomorrow, and the day after, they will walk as they have walked before, the wretched slaves of folly and passion; leaving undone all Christ'swork, and greedily doing his enemy's. Yet even these Christ yet spares, he still calls them, he has died for them. Still the word must be spokento them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. It maybe, that they will some day turn; and if not, Christ has perfected hismercy towards them; and Christ's servants have delivered their own soulsin warning them. May there be but few of us on whom this horribleportion will fall; yet, is it not an awful thing to think of, that itwill, in all human probability, fall on some? and that whoever hardenshis heart, and resists the word spoken to him this day, he is one whohas done as much as in him lies to make himself among that number. 

LECTURE VI. 

 * * * * *

COLOSSIANS iii. 3. 

_Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God_. 

When I have spoken, from time to time, of denying ourselves for the sakeof relieving others, although self-denial and charity are, in their fullgrowth, amongst the highest of Christian graces, yet I have felt muchhope that, up to a certain degree, in their lowest and elementary formsat least, there might be many that would be disposed to practise them. For these are virtues which do undoubtedly commend themselves to ourminds as things clearly good: so much so that I am inclined to thinkthat the much-disputed moral sense, the nature of which is said to be sohard to ascertain, exists most clearly in the universal perception thatit is good to deny ourselves and to benefit others. I do not say merelythat there is a perception that it is good to deny ourselves in order tobenefit others; but that there is in self-denial, simply, somethingwhich commands respect; an unconscious tribute, I suppose, to the truth, that the self which, is thus denied is one which, if indulged, wouldrun to evil. 

But a point of far greater difficulty, of absolutely the greatestdifficulty, is to impress upon our minds the excellence ofanother quality, which is known by the name of spiritual orheavenly-mindedness. In fact, this, --and this almost singly, --is thetranscendent part of Christianity; that part of it which is notaccording to, but above, nature; which, conscience, I think, itself, inthe natural man, does not acknowledge. When Christianity speaks ofpurity, of truth, of justice, of charity, of faith and love to God, itspeaks a language which, however belied by our practice, is at onceallowed by our consciences: the things so recommended are, beyond alldoubt, good and lovely. But when it says, in St. Paul's words, "Set youraffections on things above, not on things on the earth: for ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God, " the language sounds so strangethat it is scarcely intelligible; and if we do get to understand it, yetit seems to give a wrench, as it were, to our whole being, to command athing extravagant and impossible. 

I am persuaded that this would be so, more or less, everywhere; but inhow extreme a degree must it hold good amongst us! Even in poverty, insickness, and old age, where this life would seem to be nothing but aburden, and the command to "set the affections on things above" mightappear superfluous, still the known so prevails over the unknown, thefamiliar over the incomprehensible, that hope and affection findcontinually their objects in this world, there is still a clinging tolife, and an unwillingness to die. But in a state the very opposite tothis, in plenty, in health, in youth; with much of enjoyment actually inour hands, and more in prospect; with just so much mystery over ourcoming life as to keep alive interest, yet with enough known andunderstood in its prospects to awaken sympathy; what deafest ear of thedeaf adder could ever be so closed against the voice of the charmer, asour minds, so engrossed with the enjoyments and the hopes of earth, areclosed against the voice which speaks of the things of heaven?

Again, I have said, when speaking of other subjects, that I looked uponthe older persons among you as a sort of link between me and theyounger, who communicated, in some instances, by their language andexample, something of an impression of the meaning of Christianteaching. But when we speak of a thing so high as spiritual-mindedness, it seems as if none of us can be a link between Christ's words and ourbrethren's minds: as if we all stand alike at an infinite distance fromthe high and unapproachable truth. The mountain of God becomes veiled, as it were, with the clouds which rested upon Sinai; we cannot approachnear it, but stand far off, for a moment, perhaps, in awe; but soon inneglect and indifference. 

Let any one capable of thinking, but in the full vigour of health ofbody and mind, placed far above want, and with the prospect, accordingto all probability, of many years of happy life before him, let such anone go forth, at this season of the year above all, let him see the vastpreparation for life in all nature, amongst all living creatures, inevery tree, and in every plant of grass; let him feel the warmth of thesun, becoming every day stronger and stronger; let him be possessed, inevery sense, with an impression of the vigour and beauty and gloryaround him; and let him feel no less a vigour in himself, too, of bodyand mind, and infinitely varied power of enjoyment in so many facultiesof repose and of energy, --and then let him calmly consider what St. Paulcould mean, when he says generally to Christians, "Set your affectionson things above, not on things on the earth; for ye are dead, and yourlife is hid with Christ in God. "

Let a person capable of thinking, and such as I have supposed in allother respects, consider what St. Paul could mean by calling him "dead. "With an almost thrilling consciousness of life, with an almost boundingsense of vigour in body and mind, he is told that he is "dead. " Andstranger still, he is told so by one whose recorded life, and existingwritings declare that he too must have had in himself a consciousness oflife no less lively; that there was in him an activity and energy whichneither age nor sufferings could quell; that he wielded an influenceover the minds of thousands, such as kings or conquerors might envy. IfSt. Paul could stand by our side, think we that he, any more thanourselves, would be insensible to the power within him, and to thebeauty and the glory without? Yet his words are recorded; he bids us notset our affections on things on the earth; he declares of himself, andof us equally, if we are Christ's servants, that we are dead, and thatour life is hid with Christ in God. 

I have put the difficulty in its strongest form, for it is one wellworth considering. What St. Paul here urges is indeed the highestperfection of Christianity, and therefore of human nature; but it is notan impossible perfection, and St. Paul's own life and character are ourwarrant that it is nothing sickly, or foolish, or fanatical. But let usfirst hear the whole of St. Paul's language: "If ye, then, be risen withChrist, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at theright hand of God. Set your affections on things above, not on things onthe earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appearwith him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon theearth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evilconcupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry. " "Mortify, " I neednot say, is to make dead, to destroy. "Ye are dead;" therefore let yourmembers on earth be dead; "fornication, uncleanness, inordinateaffection, " &c. As if he had said, By becoming Christians ye engaged tobe dead; and therefore see to it that ye are so. But what he requires usto make dead or to destroy, are our evil affections and desires; it ismanifest, then, that it is to these that, by becoming Christians, weengage to become dead. 

This is true; and it is most certain that Christ requires us to be deadonly to what is evil. But the essence of spiritual-mindedness consistsin this, that it is assumed that with earth, and all things earthly, evil or imperfection are closely mixed; so that it is not possible toset our affections keenly upon, or to abandon ourselves to the enjoymentof, any earthly thing without the danger of those affections and thatenjoyment becoming evil. In other words, there is that in the state ofthings within and around us, which, renders it needful to be everwatchful; and watchfulness is inconsistent with an intensity of delightand enjoyment. 

For, consider the case which I was just supposing; that lively sense ofthe beauty of all nature, that indescribable feeling of delight whicharises out of the consciousness of health, and strength and power. Suppose that we abandon ourselves to such impressions without restraint, and is it not manifest that they are the extreme of godless pride andselfishness? For do we not know that in this world, and close to uswherever we are, there is, along with all the beauty and enjoyment whichwe witness, a large portion also of evil, and of suffering? And do wenot know that He who gave to the earth its richness, and who set the sunto shine in the heavens, and who gave to us that wonderful frame of bodyand mind, whose healthful workings are So delightful to us, that He gavethem that we might use both body and mind in His service; that thesoldier has something else to do than to gaze like a child on thesplendour of his uniform or the brightness of his sword; that thosefaculties which we feel as it were burning within us, have their workbefore them, a work far above their strength, though multiplied athousand fold; that the call to them to be busy is never silent; thatthere is an infinite voice in the infinite sins and sufferings ofmillions which proclaims that the contest is raging around us; thatevery idle moment is treason; that now it is the time for unceasingefforts; and that not till the victory is gained may Christ's soldiersthrow aside their arms, and resign themselves to enjoyment and to rest?

Then when we turn to the words, "our life is hid with Christ in God, "the exceeding greatness of Christ's promises rises upon us in somethingof the fulness of their reality. Some may know the story of that Germannobleman[12], whose life had been distinguished alike by genius andworldly distinctions, and by Christian holiness; and who, in the lastmorning of his life, when the dawn broke into his sick chamber, prayedthat he might be supported to the window, and might look once again uponthe rising sun. After looking steadily at it for some time, he criedout, "Oh! if the appearance of this earthly and created thing is sobeautiful and so quickening, how much more shall I be enraptured at thesight of the unspeakable glory of the Creator Himself!" That was thefeeling of a man whose sense of earthly beauty had all the keenness of apoet's enthusiasm; but who, withal, had in his greatest health andvigour preserved the consciousness that his life was hid with Christ inGod; that the things seen, how beautiful soever, were as nothing to thethings which are not seen. And so, if from the feeling of naturalenjoyment we turn, at once thankfully and earnestly, to remember God'sservice, and to address ourselves to his work; and sadly remember, that, although we can enjoy, yet that many are suffering; and that, whilstthey are so, enjoyment in us for more than a brief space of needful restcannot but be sin; then there must come upon us, most strongly, theimpression of that life where sin and suffering are not; where not God'sworks only, but God Himself is visible; where the vigour and facultieswhich we feel within us are not the passing strength of a decaying body, nor the brief prime of a mind which in a few years must sink intodotage; but the strength of a body incorruptible and eternal, theripeness of a spirit which shall go on growing in wisdom and lovefor ever. 

[Footnote 12: The Baron Von Canitz. ]

Thus, then, if we consider again St. Paul's meaning, we shall find that, high and pure as it is, it is nothing unreasonable or impossible; thatwhat he requires us to be dead to absolutely is that which is evil;that, because of the mixture of evil with ourselves and all around us, this life must not and cannot be a life of entire enjoyment withoutbecoming godless and selfish; that, therefore, our affections cannot beset upon earthly things so as to enjoy them in and for themselvesentirely, without becoming inordinate, and therefore evil. He doesrequire us, old and young alike, to set our affection on things above:to remember that with God, and with Him alone, can be our rest, and thefulness of our joy; and amidst our pleasure in earthly things to retainin our minds, first, a grateful sense of their Giver; secondly, aremembrance of their passing nature; and thirdly, a consciousness of theevil that is in the world, which makes it a sin to resign ourselves toany enjoyment, except as a permitted refreshment to strengthen us forduty to come. Above all, let one feeling be truly cherished, and itwill do more, perhaps, than any other to moderate our pleasure inearthly things, and to render it safe, and wholesome, and Christianlike. That feeling is the remembrance of our own faults. Let us bear these inmind as God does; let us consider how displeasing they are in His sight;how often they are repeated; how little they deserve the enjoymentswhich are given us. If this does not change our selfish pleasure into azealous gratitude, then, indeed, sin must have a dominion over us; forthe natural effect would be, that our hearts should burn within us forvery shame, and should enkindle us to be thankful with all our strengthfor blessings so undeserved; to show something of our love to God whohas so richly shown his love to us. 

LECTURE VII. 

 * * * * *

CORINTHIANS iii. 21-23. 

_All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or theworld, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all areyours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's_. 

It is very possible, that all may not distinctly understand the force ofthe several clauses of this passage, yet, all, I suppose, would derive ageneral impression from it, that it spoke of the condition of Christiansin very exalted language, and made it to extend to things in this world, as well as to things in the world to come. But can it be good for us todwell on our exaltation? And if we do, may we not dread lest suchlanguage might be used towards us as that which St. Paul uses in thevery next chapter to the Corinthians, "Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us; and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. " It would seem, however, that itwould be good for us to dwell on the greatness of our condition andprivileges, because St. Paul, who thus upbraids the Corinthians withtheir pride, had yet himself immediately before laid the picture oftheir high privileges, in the words of the text, in full detail beforethem, as if he wished them carefully to consider it. And so indeed itis. It feeds pride to dwell upon our good qualities or advantages, asindividuals, or as a class in society, or as a nation, or as a sect orparty; but, to speak generally, our advantages and privileges, asChristians, have not a tendency to excite pride; for some reasons in thenature of the case; for this reason amongst ourselves particularly, because the very essence of pride consists in contrast; we are proudthat we are, in some one or more points, superior to others who comeimmediately under our observation. Now, we have so little to do with anywho are not Christians, that the contrast is in this case wanting; wehave none over whom to be proud; none whom we can glory in surpassing;and, therefore, a consideration of our Christian advantages, in theabsence of that one element which might feed pride, is likely with us towork in a better manner, and to lead rather to thankfulness andincreased exertion. 

I say to increased exertion; for what would stop exertion is pride. Itis the turning back, and pausing to look with satisfaction on what isbelow us, rather than the looking upward to the summit, and thinking howmuch our actual elevation has brought us on the way towards it. And, further, there is coupled with every consideration of Christianprivileges, the thought of what it must be to leave such privilegesunimproved. In this respect, how well does the language of the twolessons from Deuteronomy suit the lesson from the Epistle to theCorinthians. We heard the description of the beauty and richness of theland which God gave to his people, --there were their advantages andprivileges, --we heard also, the declaration of their unworthiness, andthe solemn threatening of vengeance if, after having received good, theydid evil. And as the vengeance has fallen upon them to the utmost, so weare taught expressly to apply their example to ourselves. "If God sparednot the natural branches, " such was St. Paul's language to the church atRome, "take heed lest he also spare not thee. "

Let us not fear, then, to consider more nearly the high privilegeswhich, as Christians, we enjoy: let us endeavour to understand, notmerely generally, but in detail, the exalted language of the text, whereit is said, that all things are ours; Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, theworld, and life, and death, the things of time, and the things ofeternity. These are ours because we are Christ's, and Christ is God's;they are ours so long as we are Christ's, and so far as we are histruly. They are not ours so far as we are not his: they are ours in nodegree whatever the moment that he shall declare that we are hisno longer. 

"Paul, and Apollos, and Peter, are ours. " This, perhaps, is theexpression which we should understand least distinctly of any. It is anexpression, however, of deep importance, though perhaps less so herethan in congregations of a different sort. I need not, therefore, dwellon it long now. But the Corinthians, as many Christians have done since, were apt to think more of their being Christians of a certain sort, thanof being Christians simply: some said, "We have Paul's view ofChristianity, the true and sound view of it, free from superstition:"others said, "But we have Peter's view of Christianity, one of Christ'sown apostles, who were with him on earth; ours is the true and earliestview of it, free from all innovations:" and others, again, said, "Nay, but we have been taught by Apollos, an eloquent man, and mighty in theScriptures; one who best understands how to unite the law and thegospel; one who has given us the full perfection of Christianity. " Nodoubt there were some differences of views even between Paul, and Peter, and Apollos; for while, on the one hand, they were all enlightened bythe Spirit of God, yet, on the other hand, they retained still theirhuman differences of character and disposition, which must on severaloccasions have been manifest. But St. Paul does not tell us what thesewere, nor how far they extended, nor to what degree they had beenexaggerated by those who heard them. He does not insist upon the truthof his own view, nor wish the Corinthians to lay aside their divisions, after the manner so zealously enforced by some persons now, namely, thatthose who said they were of Peter, or of Apollos, should confess thatthey had been in error, and declare themselves to be now only of Paul. Such a condemnation of schism he would have held to be in itself in thehighest degree schismatical. But St. Paul was earnest, that schismshould be ended after another way than this, by all parties remembering, that whatever became of the truth or falsehood of their own particularviews of Christianity, yet, that Christianity according to any of theirviews was the one great thing which was their glory and their salvation. "Paul, and Apollos, and Peter, are all yours: but you are Christ's. " Youshould not glory in men; that you belong to a purer church than otherChristians; but that you belong to the church of Christ; that church, which, in its most pure particular branches, has never been free fromsome mixture of human infirmity and error; nor yet, in its worstbranches, has ever lost altogether the seal of Christ's Spirit, norceased to believe in Christ crucified. 

But the next words are of more particular concern to us here. "Theworld, and life, and death, and things present, and things to come, areall ours. " They are all ours, so far as we are Christ's. The world isours; its manifold riches and delights, its various wisdom, all areours. They are ours, not as a thing stolen, and which will be taken fromus with a heavy over-payment of penalty, because we stole it when it didnot belong to us; but they are ours by God's free gift, to minister toour comfort, and to our good. And this is the great difference; the goodthings of this world are stolen by many; but they belong, by God's gift, to those only who are Christ's: and there is the sure sign, generally, to be seen of their being stolen, --an unwillingness that He to whom ofright they belong should see them. What a man steals, he enjoys, as itwere, in fear: if the owner of it finds him with it, then all hisenjoyment is gone; he wishes that he had never touched it; it is nosource of pleasure to him, but merely one of terror. And so it is oftenwith our stolen pleasures, --stolen, I mean, not in respect of man, butof God, --stolen, because we do not feel them to be God's gift, norreceive them, as from him, with thankfulness. They may be very lawfulpleasures, so far as other men are concerned; pleasures bought, it maybe, with our own money, or given to us by our own friends, and enjoyedwithout any injury to any one. They may be the very simplest enjoymentsof life, our health, the fresh air, our common food, our commonamusements, our common society; things most permitted to us all, as faras man is concerned, but yet things which are constantly stolen by us, because we take them without God's leave, and enjoy them not as hisgifts. They are all his, and he gives them freely to his children. If weare his children, he gives them to us; and delights in our enjoyment ofthem, as any human father loves to see the pleasure of his children inthose things which it is good for them to enjoy. But then, is any childafraid of his father so seeing him? or is the thought of his father anyinterruption to his enjoyment? If it would be, we should be sure thatthere was something wrong; that the enjoyment, either in itself, or withrespect to the particular case of that child, was a stolen one. And evenas simple is the state of our dread of God, of our wish to keep hisname and his thought away from us. It is the sure sign that ourpleasures are stolen, either as being wrong in themselves, or muchoftener, because we have taken them without being fit for them, havesnatched them for ourselves, instead of receiving them at the hands ofGod. Two of us may be daily doing the very same thing in mostrespects, --enjoying actually the very same pleasures, whether of body orof mind; the same exercises, the same studies, the same indulgences, thesame society, --and yet these very same things may belong rightfully tothe one, and be stolen by the other. To the one they may come with adouble blessing, as the assurance of God's greater love hereafter: tothe other, they are but an addition to that sad account, when all goodthings enjoyed here, having been not our own rightly, but stolen, shallbe paid for in over measure, by evil things to be suffered hereafter. 

And what I have said of the world, will apply also to life and to death. Oh, the infinite difference whether life is ours, or but stolen for aninstant; whether death is ours, our subject, ministering only to ourgood; or our fearful enemy, our ever keen pursuer, from whose grasp wehave escaped for a few short years, but who is following fast after us, and when he has once caught us will hold us fast for ever! Have we everseen his near approach--has he ever forced himself upon our noticewhether we would or no? But two days since he was amongst us, --we were, as it were, forced to look upon him. Did we think that he was ours, orthat we were his? If we are his, then indeed he is fearful: fearful tothe mere consciousness of nature; a consciousness which no arguments canovercome; fearful if it be merely the parting from life, if it bemerely the resigning that wonderful thing which we call our being. It isfearful to go from light to darkness, from all that we have ever knownand loved, to that of which we know and love nothing. But if death, eventhus stingless, is yet full of horror, what is he with his worst stingbeside, the sting of our sins? What is he when he is taking us, not tonothingness, but to judgment? He is indeed so fearful then, that nowords can paint him half so truly as our foreboding dread of him, and noarguments which the wit of man can furnish can strip him of his terrors. 

But what if death too, as well as life, be ours?--which he is, if we areChrist's; for Christ has conquered him. If he be ours, our servant, ourminister, sent but to bring us into the presence of our Lord, then, indeed, his terrors, his merely natural terrors, the outside roughnessof his aspect, are things which the merest child need not shrink from. Then disease and decay, however painful to living friends to look upon, have but little pain for him who is undergoing them. For it is not onlyamidst the tortures of actual martyrdom that Christians have been morethan conquerors, --in common life, on the quiet or lonely sick bed, underthe grasp of fever or of consumption, the conquest has been witnessed asoften and as completely. It is not a little thing when the faintestwhisper of thought to which expiring nature can give utterance breathesof nothing but of peace and of forgiveness. It is not a little thingwhen the name of Christ possesses us wholly; not distinctly, it may be, for reason may be too weak for this; but with an indescribable power ofsupport and comfort. Or even if there be a last conflict, --a season ofterror and of pain, a valley of the shadow of death, dark andgloomy, --yet even there Christ is with his servants, and as their trialis so is his love. Thus it is, if death be ours; and death is ours, ifwe be Christ's. And are we not Christ's? We bear his name, we have hisoutward seal of belonging to his people, --can we refuse to be his inheart and true obedience? Would we rather steal our pleasures than enjoythem as our own; steal life for an instant, rather than have it our surepossession for ever? Would we rather be fugitives from death, fugitiveswhom he will surely recover and hold fast, than be able to say and tofeel that death, as well as life is ours, things to come, as well asthings present, because we are truly Christ's?

LECTURE VIII. 

 * * * * *

GALATIANS V. 16, 17. 

_Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. Forthe flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do thethings that ye would_. 

"We cannot do the things that we would. " These are words of familiar andcommon use; this is the language in which we are all apt to excuse, whether to ourselves or to others, the various faults of our conduct. Weshould be glad to do better, so we say and think, but the power to do sofails us. And so far it may seem that we are but echoing the apostle'slanguage; for he says the very same thing, "Ye cannot do the things thatye would. " Yet the words as we use them, and as the apostle used them, have the most opposite meaning in the world. We use them as a reason whywe should be satisfied, the apostle as a reason why we should bealarmed; we intend them to be an excuse, the apostle meant them to be acertain sign of condemnation. 

The reasons of this difference may be understood very easily. We, in thecommon course of justice, should think it hard to punish a man for notdoing what he cannot do. We think, therefore, that if we say that wecannot do well, we establish also our own claim to escape frompunishment. But God declares that a state of sin is and must be a stateof misery; and that if we cannot escape the sin, we cannot escape themisery. According to God's meaning, then, the words, "Ye cannot do thethings which ye would, " mean no other than this: "Ye cannot escape fromhell; ye cannot be redeemed from the power of death and of Satan; thepower is wanting in you, however much you may wish it: death has gotyou, and it will keep you for ever. " So that, in this way, sickness orweakness of the soul is very like sickness or weakness of the body. Wecannot help being ill or weak in many cases: is that any reason why, according to the laws of God's providence, we should not suffer the painof illness? Or is it not, rather, clear that we suffer it just becausewe have not the power to get rid of it; if we had the power to be well, we should be well. A man's evils are not gone because he wishes themaway; it is not he who would fain see his chains broken, that escapesfrom his bondage; but he who has the strength to rend them asunder. 

Thus, then, in St. Paul's language, "Ye cannot do the things that yewould, " means exactly, "Ye are not redeemed, but in bondage; ye are notsaved, but lost. " But he goes on to the reason why we cannot do thethings which we would, which is, "because the flesh and the Spirit arecontrary to one another, " and pull us, as it were, different ways. Justas we might say of a man in illness, that the reason why he is not well, as he wishes to be, is because his healthy nature and his disease arecontrary to one another, and are striving within him for the mastery. His blood, according to its healthy nature, would flow calmly andsteadily; his food, according to his healthy nature, would be receivedwith appetite, and would give him nourishment and strength; but, behold, there is in him now another nature, contrary to his healthy nature: andthis other nature makes his blood flow with feverish quickness, andmakes food distasteful to him, and makes the food which he has eatenbefore to become, as it were, poison; it does not nourish him orstrengthen, but is a burden, a weakness, and a pain. As long as thesetwo natures thus struggle within him, the man is sick; as soon as thediseased nature prevails, the man sinks and dies. He does not wish todie, --not at all, --most earnestly, it may be, does he wish to live; buthis diseased nature has overcome his healthy nature, and so he must die. If he would live, in any sense that deserves to be called life, thediseased nature must not overcome, must not struggle equally; it must beovercome, it must be kept down, it must be rendered powerless; and then, when the healthy nature has prevailed, its victory is healthand strength. 

So far all is alike; but what follows afterwards? As "ye cannot do thethings which ye would, because the flesh and the Spirit are contrary toone another, "--what then? "Therefore, " says the apostle, "walk in theSpirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. " Surely there issome thing marvellous in this. For, let us speak the same language tothe sick man: tell him, "Follow thy healthy nature, and them shalt notbe sick, " what would the words be but a bitter mockery? "How can you bidme, " he would say, "to follow my healthy nature, when ye know that mydiseased nature has bound me? Have ye no better comfort than this tooffer me? Tell me rather how I may become able to follow my healthynature; show me the strength which may help my weakness; or else yourwords are vain, and I never can recover. " Most true would be thisanswer; and therefore disease and death do make havoc of us all, and thehealthy nature is in the end borne down by the diseased nature, andsooner or later the great enemy triumphs over us, and, in spite of allour wishes and fond desires for life, we go down, death's conqueredsubjects, to the common grave of all living. 

This happens to the bodies of us all; to the souls of only too many. Butwhy does it not happen also to the souls of all? How is it that some dofulfil the apostle's bidding? that they do walk in the Spirit, andtherefore do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; and therefore havingconquered their diseased nature, they do walk according to theirhealthful nature, and are verily able to do, and do continually, thevery things that they would? Surely this so striking difference, betweenthe universal conquest of our diseased nature in the body, and theoccasional victory of the healthy nature in the soul, shows us clearlythat for the soul there has appeared a Redeemer already, while for thebody the redemption is delayed till death shall be swallowed upin victory. 

For most true is it that in ourselves we could not deliver ourselveseither soul or body. "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil thelusts of the flesh, " might have been as cruel a mockery to us, as thesimilar words addressed to the man bodily sick, --"Walk according to thyhealthy nature, and thou shalt not suffer from disease. " They might havebeen a mockery, but blessed be God, they are not. They are not, becauseGod has given us a Redeemer; they are not, because Christ has died, yearather has risen again; and because the Spirit of Christ helpeth ourinfirmities, and gives us that power which by ourselves we had not. 

Not by wishing then to be redeemed, but by being redeemed, shall weescape the power of death. Not by saying, "Alas! we cannot do the thingsthat we would!" but by becoming able to do them. Walk in the Spirit, andye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; but if ye do fulfil them, ye must die. 

The power to walk in the Spirit is given by the Spirit; but either allhave not this power, or all do not use it. I think rather it is that allhave it not, for if they had it, a power so mighty and so beneficent, they surely could not help using it. All have it not; but I do not saythat they all might not have it; on the contrary, all might have it, butin point of fact they have it not. They have it not because they seek itnot: for an idle wish is one thing; a steady persevering pursuit isanother. They seek not the Spirit by the appointed means, the means ofprayer and attending to God's holy word, and thinking of life and deathand judgment. 

Do those seek the spirit of God who never pray to God? Clearly they donot. For they who never pray to God never think of Him; they who neverthink of Him, by the very force of the terms it follows that they cannotseek his help. And yet they say, "Oh, I wish to be good, but I cannot!"But this, in the language of the Scripture, is a lie. If they did wishto be good they would seek the help that could make them so. There is noboy so young as not to know that, when temptation is on him to evil, prayer to God will strengthen him for good. As sure as we live, if hewished really to overcome the temptation, he would seek the strength. 

Consider what prayer is, and see how it cannot but strengthen us. He whostands in a sheltered place, where the wind cannot reach him, and withno branches over his head to cause a damp shade, and then holds up hisface or his hands to the sun, in his strength, can he help feeling thesun's warmth? Now, thus it is in prayer: we turn to God, we bring oursouls, with all their thoughts and feelings, fully before Him; and bythe very act of so doing, we shelter ourselves from every chill ofworldly care, we clear away every intercepting screen of worldly thoughtand pleasure. It is an awful thing so to submit ourselves wholly to theinfluence of God. But do it; and as surely as the sun will warm us if westand in the sun, so will the Giver of light and life to the soul pourhis Spirit of life into us; even as we pray, we become changed intohis image. 

This is not spoken extravagantly. I ask of any one who has ever prayedin earnest, whether for that time, and while he was so praying, he didnot feel, as it were, another man; a man able to do the things which hewould; a man redeemed and free. But most true is it that this feelingpasses away but too soon, when the prayer is done. Still for the time, there is the effect; we know what it is to put ourselves, in a manner, beneath the rays of God's grace; but we do not abide there long, andthen we feel the damp and the cold of earth again. 

Therefore says the Apostle, "Pray without ceasing. " If we couldliterally pray always, it is clear that we should sin never: it may bethus that Christ's redeemed, at his coming, as they will be for everwith him and with the Father, can therefore sin no more. For where Godis, there is no place left for sin. But we cannot pray always: we cannotpray the greatest portion of our time; nay, we can pray, in the commonsense of the term, only a very small portion of it. Yet, at least, wecan take heed that we do pray sometimes, and that our prayer be truly inearnest. We can pray then for God's help to abide with us when we arenot praying: we can commit to his care, not only our hours of sleep, butour hours of worldly waking. "I have work to do, I have a busy worldaround me; eye, ear, and thought will be all needed for that work, donein and amidst that busy world; now, ere I enter upon it, I would commiteye, ear, thought and wish to Thee. Do thou bless them, and keep theirwork thine; that as, through thy natural laws, my heart beats and myblood flows without my thought for them, so my spiritual life may holdon its course, through, thy help, at those times when my mind cannotconsciously turn to Thee to commit each particular thought tothy service. "

But I dare not say that by any the most urgent prayers, uttered only atnight and morning, God's blessing can thus be gained for the wholeintervening day. For, in truth, if we did nothing more, the prayerswould soon cease to be urgent; they would become formal, that is, theywould be no prayers at all. For prayer lives in the heart, and not inthe mouth; it consists not of words, but wishes. And no man can sethimself heartily to wish twice a day for things, of which he neverthinks at other times in the day. So that prayer requires in a manner tobe fed, and its food is to be found in reading and thinking; in readingGod's word, and in thinking about him, and about the world as beinghis work. 

Young men and boys are generally, we know, not fond of reading for itsown sake; and when they do read for their own pleasure, they naturallyread something that interests them. Now, what are called serious books, including certainly the Bible, do not interest them, and therefore theyare not commonly read. What shall we say, then? Are they not interestedin becoming good, in learning to do the things which, they would? Ifthey are not, if they care not for the bondage of sin and death, thereis, of course, nothing to be said; then they are condemned already; theyare not the children of God. But one says, "I wish I could find interestin a serious book, but I cannot. " Observe again, "Ye cannot do thethings that ye would, " because the flesh and the Spirit are contrary toone another. However, to return to him who says this, the answer to himis this, --"The interest cannot come without the reading; it may andwill come with it. " For interest in a subject depends very much on ourknowledge of it; and so it is with, the things of Christ. As long as thelife and death of Christ are strange to us, how can we be interestedabout them? but read them, thinking of what they were, and what weretheir ends, and who can help being interested about them? Read themcarefully, and read them often, and they will bring before our minds thevery thoughts which we need, and which the world keeps continually fromus, the thoughts which naturally feed our prayers; thoughts not of self, nor selfishness, nor pleasure, nor passion, nor folly, but of suchthings as are truly God's--love, and self-denial, and purity, andwisdom. These thoughts come by reading the Scriptures; and strangely dothey mingle at first with the common evil thoughts of our evil nature. But they soon find a home within us, and more good thoughts gather roundthem, and there comes a time when daily life with its various business, which, once seemed to shut them out altogether, now ministers to theirnourishment. 

Wherefore, in conclusion, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfilthe lusts of the flesh; but do even the things which ye would. And yecan walk in the Spirit, if ye seek for the Spirit; if ye seek him byprayer, and by reading of Christ, and the things of Christ. If we willdo neither, then most assuredly we are not seeking him; if we seek himnot, we shall never find him. If we find him not, we shall never be ableto do the things that we would; we shall never be redeemed, never madefree, but our souls shall be overcome by their evil nature, as surely asour bodies by their diseased nature; till one death shall possess uswholly, a death of body and of soul, the death of eternal misery. 

LECTURE IX. 

 * * * * *

LUKE xiv. 33. 

_Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannotbe my disciple_. 

In order to show that these words were not spoken to the apostles alone, but to all Christians, we have only to turn to the 25th and 26th verses, which run thus:--"And there went great multitudes with him, and heturned and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not hisfather and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yeaand his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " The words were not, then, spoken to the twelve apostles only, as if they contained merelysome rule of extraordinary piety, which was not to be required of commonChristians; they were spoken to a great multitude; they were spoken towarn all persons in that multitude that not one of them could become aChristian, unless he gave himself up to Christ body and soul. Thusdeclaring that there is but one rule for all; a rule which the highestChristian can never go beyond; and which the lowest, if he would be aChristian at all, must make the foundation of his whole life. 

Now take the words, either of the text or of the 26th verse, and is itpossible to avoid seeing that, on the very lowest interpretation, theydo insist upon a very high standard; that they do require a very entireand devoted obedience? Is it possible for any one who believes whatChrist has said, to rest contented, either for himself or for others, with that very low and very unchristian standard which he sees and knowsto prevail generally in the world? Is it possible for him not to wish, for himself and for all in whose welfare he is interested, that they maybelong to the small minority in matters of principle and practice, rather than to the large majority?

And because he so wishes, one who endeavours to follow Christ sincerelycan never be satisfied with the excuse that he acts and thinks quite aswell as the mass of persons about him; it can never give him comfort, with regard to any judgment or practice, to be told, in common language, "Everybody thinks so; everybody does so. " If, indeed, this expression"everybody" might be taken literally; if it were quite true, without anyexception, that "everybody thought or did so;" then I grant that itwould have a very great authority; so great that it would be almost amark of madness to run counter to it. For what all men, all without asingle exception, were to agree in, must be some truth which the humanmind could not reject without insanity, --like the axioms of science, orsome action which if we did not we could not live, as sleeping andeating; or if there be any moral point so universally agreed upon, thenit must be something exceedingly general: as, for instance, that truthis in itself to be preferred to falsehood; which to dispute would bemonstrous. But, once admit a single exception, and the infallible virtueof the rule ceases. I can conceive one single good and wise man'sjudgment and practice, requiring, at any rate, to be carefully attendedto, and his reasons examined, although millions upon millions stoodagainst him. But go on with the number of exceptions, and bring theexpression "everybody, " to its real meaning, which is only "mostpersons, " "the great majority of the world;" then the rule becomes ofno virtue at all, but very often the contrary. If in matters of moralsmany are on one side and some on the other, it is impossible topronounce at once which are most likely to be right: it depends on thesort of case on which the difference exists; for the victories of truthand of good are but partial. It is not all truth that triumphs in theworld, nor all good; but only truth and good up to a certain point. Letthem once pass this point, and their progress pauses. Their followers, in the mass, cannot keep up with them thus far: fewer and fewer arethose who still press on in their company, till at last even these fail;and there is a perfection at which they are deserted by all men, and arein the presence of God and of Christ alone. 

Thus it is that, up to a certain point, in moral matters the majorityare right; and thus Christ's gospel, in a great many respects, goesalong with public opinion, and the voice of society is the voice oftruth. But this, to use the expression of our Lord's parable, this isbut half the height of that tower whose top should reach unto heaven. Christianity ascends a great deal higher; and therefore so many whobegin to build are never able to finish. Christ's disciples and theworld's disciples work for a certain way together; and thus far theworld's disciples call themselves Christ's, and so Christ's followersseem to be a great majority. But Christ warns us expressly that we arenot his disciples merely by going a certain way on the same road withthem. They only are His, who follow Him to the end. They only are His, who follow him in spite of everything, who leave all rather than leavehim. For the rest, He does not own them. What the world can give theymay enjoy; but Christ's kingdom is shut against them. 

Speaking, then, according to Christ's judgment, and we must hold thoseto be of the world, and not of Him, --and therefore in God's judgment, tobe the evil and not the good, --who do not make up their minds to live inHis service, and to refer their actions, words, and thoughts to Hiswill. Who these are it is very true that we many times cannot know: onlywe may always fear that they are the majority of society; and thereforewe are rather anxious in any individual's case to get a proof that he isnot one of them, because, as they are very many, there is always a sortof presumption that any given person is of this number, unless there issome evidence, or some presumption at any rate, for thinkingthe contrary. 

When we speak, then, of the good and of the evil side in human life, inany society, whether smaller or larger, --this is what we mean, or shouldmean. The evil side contains much that is, up to a certain point, good:the good side, --for does it not consist of human beings?--contains, unhappily, much in it that is evil. Not all in the one is to beavoided, --far from it; nor is all in the other by any means to befollowed. But still those are called evil in God's judgment who liveaccording to their own impulses, or according to the law of the societyaround them; and those are to be called good, who, in their principles, whatever may be the imperfections of their practice, endeavour in allthings to live according to the will of Christ. 

And in this view the characters of Jacob and Esau are, as it seems tome, full of instruction; and above all to us here. For I have oftenobserved that the early age of an individual bears a great resemblanceto the early age of the human race, or of any particular nation; so thatthe characters of the Old Testament are often more suited, in aChristian country, for the instruction of the young than for those ofmore advanced years. To Christian men, looking at Jacob's life, with thefaults recorded of it, it is sometimes strange that he should be spokenof as good. But it seems that in a rude state of society, whereknowledge is very low, and passion very strong, the great virtue is tobe freed from the dominion of the prevailing low principle, to see andresolve that we ought and will live according to knowledge, and notaccording to passion or impulse. The knowledge may be very imperfect, and probably is so: the practice may in many respects offend againstknowledge, and probably will do so: yet is a great step taken; it is_the_ virtue of man, in such a state of society, to follow, thoughimperfectly, principle, where others follow instinct, or the opinion oftheir fellows. It is the great distinguishing mark, in such a state ofthings, between the good and the evil; for this reason, amongst manyothers, that it is the virtue, under such, circumstances, of the hardestattainment. 

Now, the Scripture judgment of Jacob and Esau, should be in an especialmanner the basis of our judgment with regard to the young. None candoubt, that amongst the young, when they form a society of their own, the great temptation is to live by impulse, or according to the opinionof those around them. It is like a light breaking in upon darkness, whena young person is led to follow a higher standard, and to live accordingto God's will. Esau, in his faults and amiable points alike, is the veryimage of the prevailing character amongst boys; sometimes violentlyrevengeful, as when Esau looked forward with satisfaction to theprospect of his father's death, because then we should be able to slayhis brother Jacob; sometimes full of generosity, as when Esau forgot allhis grounds of complaint against his brother, and received him on hisreturn from Mesopotamia with open arms;--but habitually careless, andsetting the present before the future, the lower gratification beforethe higher, as when Esau sold his birth-right for a mess of pottage. Andthe point to be noted is, that, because of this carelessness, thisprofaneness or ungodliness, as it is truly called in the New Testament, Esau is distinguished from those who were God's people; the promiseswere not his, nor yet the blessing. This is remarkable, because Esau'sfaults, undoubtedly were just the faults of his age: he was no worsethan the great majority of those around him; he lived as we should say, in our common language, that it was natural for him to live. He had, therefore, precisely all those excuses which are commonly urged for theprevailing faults of boys; yet it is quite certain that the Scriptureholds him out as a representative of those who were not on the sideof God, If the Scripture has so judged of Esau and Jacob, it must be the modelfor our judgments of those whose circumstances, on account of theirbelonging to a society consisting wholly of persons young in age, greatly resemble the circumstances of the early society of the world. Ilay the stress on the belonging to a society wholly formed of youngpersons; for the case of young persons brought up at home, is extremelydifferent; and their circumstances would be best suited by a differentscriptural example. But here, with you, I am quite sure that the greatdistinguishing mark between good and evil, is the endeavouring, or notendeavouring, to rise above the carelessness of the society of which youare members; the determining, or not determining, to judge of things byanother rule than that of school morality or honour; the trying, or nottrying, to please God, instead of those around you: for the notions andmaxims of a society of young persons are like the notions and maxims ofmen in a half-civilized age, a strange mixture of right and wrong; orrather wrong in their result, although with some right feeling in them, and therefore as a guide, false and mischievous. That it is natural tofollow these maxims, is quite obvious: they are the besetting sin ofyour particular condition; and it is always according to our corruptnature to follow our besetting sin. It is quite natural that you shouldbe careless, profane, mistaking evil for good, and good for evil; butsalvation is not for those who follow their nature, but for those inwhom God's grace has overcome its evil; it is for those, in Christ'slanguage, who take up their cross and follow him; that is, for those whostruggle against their evil nature, that they may gain a better nature, and be born, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit of God. 

What is to be said to this? or what qualification, or compromise, is tobe made in it? The words of the text will authorize us, at any rate, tomake none: their language is not that of indulgent allowance; but it isa call, a loud and earnest, even a severe, call, it may be, in thejudgment of our evil nature, --to shake off the weight that hangs aboutus; to deliver our hearts from the dominion of that which cannot profit, and to submit them to Christ alone. This is God's judgment, this isChrist's word; and we cannot and dare not qualify it. They are evil, forGod and Christ declare it, who judge and live after the maxims of thesociety around them, and not after Christ; they are evil who arecareless; they are evil who live according to their own blind andcapricious feelings, now hot, now cold; they are evil who call evilgood, and good evil, because they have not known the Father nor Christ. This, and nothing less, we say, lest we should be found false witnessesof God: but if this language, which is that of Scripture, seem harsh, toany one, oh! let him remember how soon he may change it into thelanguage of the most abundant mercy, of the tenderest love; that if hecalls upon God, God is ready to hear; that if he seeks to know and to doGod's will, God will be found by him, and will strengthen him; that itis true kindness not to disguise from him his real danger, but earnestlyto conjure him to flee from it, and to offer our humblest prayers toGod, for him and ourselves, that our judgments and our practice may beformed only after his example. 

LECTURE X. 

 * * * * *

1 TIMOTHY i. 9. 

_The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless anddisobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholyand profane_. 

These words explain the meaning of a great many passages in St. Paul'sEpistles, in which also he speaks of the law, and of not being under thelaw, and other such expressions. And it is clear also, that he is notspeaking solely, or chiefly, or, in any considerable degree, of theceremonial law; but much more of the law of moral good, the law whichtold men how they ought to live, and how they ought not. This law, hesays, is not made for good men, but for evil: a thing so plain, that wemay well wonder how any could ever have misunderstood it. It is somanifest, that strict rules are required, just exactly in proportion toour inability or want of will to rule ourselves; it is so very plain, that, with regard to those crimes which we are under no temptation tocommit, we feel exactly as if there were no law. Which of us everthinks, as a matter of personal concern, of the law which sentences todeath murderers, or housebreakers, or those who maliciously set fire totheir neighbours' property? Do we not feel that, as far as our ownconduct is concerned, it would be exactly the same thing if no such lawwere in existence? We should no more murder, or rob, or set fire tohouses and barns, if the law were wholly done away, than we do now thatit is in force. 

There are, then, some points in which we feel practically that we arenot under the law, but dead to it; that the law is not made for us: butdo we think, therefore, that we may murder, and rob, and burn? or do wenot rather feel that such a notion would be little short of madness? Weare not under the law, because we do not need it; not because there isin reality no law to punish us if we do need it. And just of this kindis that general freedom from the law, of which St. Paul speaks, as thehigh privilege of true Christians. 

But yet St. Paul would not at all mean that any Christian is altogetherwithout the law: that is, that there are no points at all in which hisinclination is not to evil, and in which, therefore, he needs the fearof God to restrain him from it. When he says of himself, that he keptunder his body lest that by any means he should become a castaway; justso far as this fear of being a castaway possessed him, that is, just sofar as there were any evil tendencies in him, which required him to keepthem under by an effort, just so far was he under the law. And this isso, as we full well know, with us all; for as there is none of us inwhom sin is utterly dead, so neither can there be any of us who isaltogether dead to the law. 

Yet, although this be so, there is no doubt that the gospel wishes toconsider us as generally dead to the law, in order that we really maybecome so continually more and more. It supposes that the Spirit of God, presenting to our minds the sight of God's love in Christ, sets us freefrom the law of sin and death; that is, that a sense of thankfulness toGod, and love of God and of Christ, will be so strong a motive, that weshall, generally speaking, need no other; that it will so work upon us, as to make us feel good, easy, and delightful, and thus to become deadto the law. And there is no doubt also, that that same freedom from thelaw, which we ourselves experience daily, in respect of some particulargreat crimes, (for, as I said, we do not feel that it is the fear of thelaw which keeps us from murder or from robbing, ) that very same freedomis felt by good men in many other points, where it may be that weourselves do not feel it. A common instance may be given with respect toprayer, and the outward worship of God. There are a great many who feelthis as a duty; but there are many also to whom it is not so much aduty, as a privilege and a pleasure; and these are dead to the law whichcommands us to be instant in prayer, just as we, in general, are dead tothe law which commands us to do no murder. 

This being understood, it will be perfectly plain, why St. Paul, alongwith all his language as to the law being passed away, and our beingbecome dead to it, yet uses, very frequently, language of another kind, which shows that the law is not dead in itself, but lives, and ever willlive. He says, "We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to what he has done in the body. "And he adds, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuademen. " But the judgment, and the terror of the Lord, mean precisely whatare meant by the law. And this language of St. Paul shows more clearly, that, unless we are first dead to the law, the law is not, and neverwill be dead to us. 

I should not have thought it useless, to have offered merely thisexplanation of a language, which is very common in the New Testament, which, forms one of its characteristic points, (for St. John'sexpression of "Perfect love casteth out fear, " is exactly equivalent toSt. Paul's, "That we are dead to the law, ") and which has been oftenmisunderstood, or misrepresented. But yet I am well aware, that mereexplanations of Scripture cannot be expected to interest those to whomScripture is not familiar. The answer to a riddle would be very soonforgotten, unless the riddle had first at once amused and puzzled us. Just so, explanations of Scripture, to be at all valued, must suppose aprevious knowledge of, and desire to understand, the difficulty; andthis we cannot expect to find in very young persons. Thus far, then, what I have said has been necessarily addressed, I do not say, or mean, to the oldest part of my hearers only, but yet to the older, and moreconsidering part of them. But the subject is capable, I think, of beingbrought much more closely home to us; for what St. Paul says of the law, with reference to all mankind, is precisely that state of mind which onewould wish to see here; and the mistakes of his meaning are just such asare often prevalent, and are likely to do great mischief, with regard tothe motives to be appealed to in education. 

Now, what is the case in the Scripture? Men had been subject to a strictlaw of rewards and punishments, appealing directly to their hopes, andto their fears. The gospel offered itself to them, as a declaration ofGod's love to them; so wonderful, that it seemed as though it could notbut excite them to love him in return. It also raised their wholenature; their understandings, no less than their affections; and thusled them to do God's will, from another and higher feeling than they hadfelt heretofore; to do it, not because they must, but because they lovedit. And to such as answered to this heavenly call, God laid aside, if Imay venture so to speak, all his terrors; he showed himself to them onlyas a loving father, between whom and his children there was nothing butmutual affection; who would be loved by them, and love them forever. Butto those who answered not to it, and far more, who dared to abuse it;who thought that God's love was weakness; that the liberty to which theywere called, was the liberty of devils, the liberty of doing evil asthey would; to all such, God was still a consuming fire, and their mostmerciful Saviour himself was a judge to try their very hearts and reins;in short, the gospel was to them, not salvation, but condemnation; itawakened not the better, but the baser parts of their nature; it did notdo away, but doubled their guilt, and therefore brought upon them, andwill bring through all eternity, a double measure of punishment. 

Now all this applies exactly to that earlier and, as it were, preparatory life, which ends not in death, but in manhood. The state ofboyhood begins under a law. It is a great mistake to address always thereason of a child, when you ought rather to require his obedience. Dothis, do not do that; if you do this, I shall love you; if you do not, Ishall punish you;--such is the state, most clearly a state of law, underwhich we are, and must be, placed at the beginning of education. But weshould desire and endeavour to see this state of law succeeded bysomething better; we should desire so to unfold the love of Christ as todraw the affections towards him; we should desire so to raise theunderstanding as that it may fasten itself, by its own native tendrils, round the pillar of truth, without requiring to be bound to it byexternal bands. We should avoid all unnecessary harshness; we shouldspeak and act with all possible kindness; because love, rather thanfear, love both of God and man, is the motive which we particularly wishto awaken. Thus, keeping punishment in the background and, as it were, out of sight, and putting forward encouragement and kindness, we shouldattract, as it were, the good and noble feelings of those with, whom weare dealing, and invite them to open, and to answer to, a system ofconfidence and kindness, rather than risk the chilling and hardeningthem by a system of mistrust and severity. 

And for those who do answer to this call, how really true is it thatthey do soon become dead, in great measure, to the law of the placewhere they are living! How little do they generally feel its restraints, or its tasks, burdensome! How very little have they to do with itspunishments! Led on by degrees continually higher and higher, theirrelations with us become more and more relations of entire confidenceand kindness; and when at last their trial is over, and they pass fromthis first life, as I have ventured to call it, into their second lifeof manhood, how beautifully are they ripened for that state! hownaturally do all the restraints of this first life fall away, like themortal body of the perfected Christian; and they enter upon the fullliberty of manhood, fitted at once to enjoy and to improve it!

But observe, that St. Paul does not suppose even the best Christian tobe without the law altogether: there will ever be some points in whichhe will need to remember it. And so it is unkindness, rather thankindness, and a very mischievous mistake, to forget that here, in thisour preparatory life, the law cannot cease altogether with any one; thatit is not possible to find a perfect sense and feeling of right existingin every action; nay, that it is even unreasonable to seem to expect it. Little faults, little irregularities, there always will be, with whichthe law is best fitted to deal; which should be met, I mean, by a systemof rules and of punishments, not severe, certainly, nor one at allinconsistent with general respect, kindness, and confidence; but whichcheck the particular faults alluded to better, I think, than could bedone by seeming to expect of the individual that he should, in all suchcases, be a law to himself. There is a possibility of our over-strainingthe highest principles, by continually appealing to them on verytrifling occasions. It is far better, here, to apply the system of thelaw; to require obedience to rules, as a matter of discipline; to visitthe breach of them by moderate punishment, not given in anger, not atall inconsistent with general confidence and regard, but gentlyreminding us of that truth which we may never dare wholly toforget, --that punishment will exist eternally so long as there is evil, and that the only way of remaining for ever entirely strangers to it, isby adhering for ever and entirely to good. 

This applies to every one amongst us; and is the reason why rules, discipline, and punishments, however much they may be, and are, kept inthe background for such, as have become almost wholly dead to them, mustyet continue in existence, because none are, or can be, dead to themaltogether. But now, suppose that we have a nature to deal with, which, cannot answer to a system of kindness, but abuses it; which, whenpunishment is kept at a distance, rejoices, as thinking that it mayfollow evil safely; a nature not to be touched by the love of God orman, not to be guided by any perception of its own as to what is rightand true. Is the law dead really to such as these? or should it be so?Is punishment a degradation to a nature which, is so self-degraded as tobe incapable of being moved by anything better? For this is the realdegradation which we should avoid; not the fear of punishment, which isnot at all degrading, but the being insensible to the love of Christ andof goodness; and so being capable of receiving no other motive than thefear of punishment alone. With such natures, to withhold punishment, would be indeed to make Christ the minister of sin; to make mercy, thatis, lead to evil, and not to good. For them, the law never is dead, andnever will be. Here, of course, in this first life, as I have called it, punishment indeed goes but a little way: it is very easy for a hardenednature to defy all that could be laid upon it here in the way of actualcompulsion. Our only course is to cut short the time of trial, when wefind a nature in whom that trial cannot end in good. Still there may bethose in whom this life here, like their greater life which shall lastfor ever, will have far more to do with punishment than with kindness;they will be living all their time under the law. Continue this to oursecond life, and the law then will be no less alive, and they will neverbe dead to it, nor will it be ever dead to them. And however a hardenednature may well despise the punishments of its first life, --punishments, whose whole object is correction, and not retribution, --yet, where isthe nature so hard as to endure, in its relations with God, to feel moreof his punishment than of his mercy; to know him for ever as a God ofjudgment, and not as a Father of love?

LECTURE XI. 

 * * * * *

ST. LUKE xxi. 36. 

_Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthyto escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand beforethe Son of Man_. 

This might be a text for a history of the Christian Church, from itsfoundation to this hour, or to the latest hour of the world's existence. We might observe how it Lad fulfilled its Lord's command; with whatsteadiness it had gone forward on its course, with the constant hope ofmeeting Him once again in glory. We might see how it had escaped allthese things that were to come to pass: tracing its course amidst themanifold revolutions of the world, inward and outward. In the few words, "all these things that shall come to pass, " are contained all the eventsof the last eighteen hundred years: indistinct and unknown to us, aslong as they are thus folded up together; but capable of being unrolledbefore our eyes in a long order, in which should be displayed all theoutward changes of nations, the spread of discovery, the vicissitudes ofconquest; and yet more, the inward changes of men's minds, the variousschools of philosophy, the successive forms of public opinion, theinfluences of various races, all the manifold elements by which themoral character of the Christian world has been affected. We mightobserve how the Church had escaped all these things, or to what degreeit had received from any of them good or evil. And then, stopping atthe point at which it has actually arrived, we might consider how far itdeserves the character of that Church, "without spot, or wrinkle, or anysuch thing, " which should be presented before the Son of Man at hiscoming again. 

This would be a great subject; and one, if worthily executed, full ofthe deepest instruction to us all. But our Lord's words may also be madethe text for a history or inquiry of another sort, far lesscomprehensive in time and space, far less grand, far less interesting tothe understanding; yet, on the other hand, capable of being wrought outfar more completely, and far more interesting to the spiritual andeternal welfare of each of us. They may be made the text for an inquiryinto the course hitherto held, not by the Church as a body, but by eachof us individual members of it; an inquiry how far we, each of us, havewatched and prayed always, that we might be accounted worthy to escapeall the things which should come to pass, and to stand before the Son ofMan. And, in this view of the words, the expression "all these thingswhich shall come to pass" has reference no longer to great politicalrevolutions, nor to schools of philosophy, nor to prominent points ofnational character; but to those humbler events, to those lesserchanges, outward and inward, through which we each, pass between ourcradle and our grave. How have we escaped these, or turned them to goodaccount? Have earthly things so ministered to our eternal welfare, thatif we were each one of us, by a stroke from heaven, cut off at that verypoint in our course to which we have severally attained this day, weshould be accounted worthy to stand before the Son of Man?

Here is, indeed, a very humble history for us each to study; yet whatother history can concern us so nearly? And as, in the history of theworld, experience in part supplies the place of prophecy, and the fateof one nation is in a manner a mirror to another, so in our individualhistory, the experience of the old is a lesson to the middle-aged, andthat of the middle-aged a lesson to the young. If you wish to know whatare the things which shall come to pass with respect to you, we can drawaside the veil from your coming life, because what you will be is noother than what we are. If we would go onwards, in like manner, and askwhat are the things which shall come to pass with respect to us, ourcoming life may be seen in the past and present life of the old; forwhat we shall be is no other than what they have been, or than whatthey are. 

Let us take, then, the actual moment with, each of us, and suppose thatour Lord speaks to each of us as he did to his first disciples: "Watchand pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all thesethings which shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. " Weask, naturally, "What are the things which shall come to pass?" and itis to this question that I am to try to suggest the answer. 

Those arrived at middle age may ask the question, "What are the thingswhich shall come to pass to us?" Now, setting aside extraordinaryaccidents, on which we cannot reckon, and the answer would, I think, besomething of this sort: There will not come to pass, it is likely, anygreat change in our condition or employment in life. In middle age ourcalling, with all the duties which it involves, must generally be fixedfor each of us. Our particular kind of trial will not, it is probable, be much altered. We must not, as in youth, fancy that, although ouractual occupation does not suit us, although its temptations are oftentoo strong for us, yet a change may take place to another line of duty, and the temptations in that new line may be less formidable. In middleage it will not do to indulge such fond hopes as these. On the contrary, our hope must lie, not in escape, but in victory. If our temptationspress us hard, we cannot expect to have them exchanged for others lesspowerful: they will remain with us, and we must overcome them, orperish. Have we tastes not fully reconciled to our calling, --facultieswhich seem not to have found their proper field? We must seek our remedynot from without, humanly speaking, but from within: we must disciplineourselves; we must teach our tastes to cling gracefully around that dutyto which else they must be helplessly fastened. If any faculties appearnot to have found their proper field, we must think that God has, forcertain wise reasons, judged it best for us that they should not beexercised; and we must be content to render him the service of others. In this respect, then, the immediate prospect for middle age is not somuch change as steadfastness. Fortune will not suit herself to ourwishes: we must learn to suit our wishes to her. 

But go on a little farther, and what are the things which must come topass then? A new and most solemn interest arising to us in the entranceof our children into active life. Hitherto they have lived under ourcare, and our duty to them was simple; but now there comes the choice ofa profession, the watching and guiding them, as well as we can, at thiscritical moment of their course. What cares await us here; and yet whatneed of avoiding over care! What a trial for us, how we value ourchildren's worldly interests when compared with their eternal--whetherwe prefer for them the path which may lead most readily to worldlywealth and honour, or that in, which they may best and safest followChrist! This is a danger which will come to pass to us ere long: do wewatch and pray that we may be delivered from it?

The interest of life, which had, perhaps, something begun to fade forourselves, will revive with vigour at this period in behalf of ourchildren; but after this it will go on steadily ebbing. What life canoffer we have tasted for ourselves; we have seen it tasted, or in theway to be tasted, by them. The harvest is gathered, and the symptoms ofthe fall appear. Is it that some faculty becomes a little impaired, sometaste a little dulled; or is it that the friends and companions of ourlife are beginning to drop away from us? Long since, those whom we lovedof the generation before us have been gathered to the grave; now thoseof our own generation are falling fast also--brothers, sisters, friendsof our early youth, a wife, a husband. We are surrounded by a youngergeneration, to whom the half of our lives, with all their recollectionsand sympathies, are a thing unknown. Impatience, weariness, a clingingto the past, a vain wish to prolong it in an earthly future, --these arethe things which shall befal us then: and they will befal us too surely, and too irresistibly, unless, by earlier watchfulness and prayer, we mayhave been enabled to avoid them. For vain will it be, with faculties atonce weakened by the decay of nature and perverted by long habits ofworldliness, to essay, for the first time, to force our way into thekingdom of heaven. Old age is not the season for contest and victory;nor shall we then be so able to escape unharmed from the temptations oflife as to stand before the Son of Man. 

These are the things which will come to pass for us and for you. But foryou there is much more to come, which to us is not future now, but pastor present. With you, for a time, it will be all a course forwards andupwards. From the preparation for life, you will come to the reality;from a state of less importance, you will be passing on to one ofgreater. Your temptations, whatever they may be now, will not certainlybecome weaker. As outward restraint is more and more taken off from you, so your need of inward restraint will be greater. Will those who areextravagant now on a small scale, be less extravagant on a large scale?Will those who are selfish now, become less selfish amidst a wider fieldof enjoyment? Will those who know not or care not for Christ, while yet, as it were, standing quietly on the shore, be led to think of him moreamidst the excitement of the first setting sail, amidst the interest ofthe first newly-seen country?

You know not yet, nor can know, the immense importance of that period oflife on which many of you are entering, or have just entered. You arecoming, or come, to what may be called the second beginning of life: towhich, in the common course of things, there will succeed no third. Ignorance, absence of temptation, the presence of all good impressions, constitute much of the innocence of mere childhood, --so beautiful whileit lasts, so sure to be soon blighted! It is blighted in the firstexperience of life, most commonly when a boy first goes to school. Thenhis mere innocence, which indeed he may be said to have worn ratherinstinctively than by choice, becomes grievously polluted. Then come thehardness, the coarseness, the intense selfishness; sometimes, too, thefalsehood, the cruelty, the folly of the boy: then comes that period, sotrying to the faith of parents, when all their early care seems blasted;when the vineyard, which they had fenced so tenderly, seems alldespoiled and trodden under foot. It is indeed a discouraging season, the exact image of the ungenial springs of our natural year. But afterthis there comes, as it were, a second beginning of life, when principletakes the place of innocence. There is a time, --many of you must havearrived at it, --when thought and inquiry awaken; when, out of the merechaos of boyhood, the elements of the future character of the man beginto appear. Blessed are they for whom the confusion and disarray of theirboyish life is quickened into a true life by the moving of the Spirit ofGod! Blessed are they for whom the beginnings of thought and inquiry arethe beginnings also of faith and love; when the new character receives, as it is forming, the Christian seed, and the man is also the Christian. And, then, this second beginning of life, resting on faith and consciousprinciple, and not on mere passive innocence, stands sure for the middleand the end: those who so watch and pray as to escape out of thiscritical period, not merely unharmed, but, as it were, set clearly ontheir way to heaven, will, with God's grace, escape out of the thingswhich shall befal them afterwards, till they shall stand before theSon of Man. 

But the word is, "Watch and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthyto escape. " We see the time with many of you come, or immediatelycoming; out of your present state _a_ character will certainly beformed; as surely as the innocence of childhood has perished, so surelywill the carelessness of boyhood perish too. _A_ character will beformed, whether you watch and pray, or whether you do neither; but thegreat point is what this character may be. If you do not watch theprocess, it will surely be the character of death eternal. Thought andinquiry will satisfy themselves very readily with an answer as far asregards spiritual things: their whole vigour will be devoted to thethings of this world, to science or to business, or to public matters, all alike hardening rather than softening to the mind, if its thoughtsdo not go to something higher and deeper still. And as years pass on, wemay think on these our favourite or professional subjects more and moreearnestly; our views on them may be clearer and sounder, but there comesagain nothing like the first free burst of thought in youth; theintellect in later life, if its tone was not rightly taken earlier, becomes narrowed in proportion to its greater vigour; one thing it seesclearly, but it is blind to all beside. It is in youth that the aftertone of the mind is happily formed, when that natural burst of thoughtis sanctified and quickened by God's Spirit, and we set up within us tolove and adore, all our days, the one image of the truth of God, ourSaviour Jesus. Then, whatever else may befal us afterwards, it rarelyhappens that our faith will fail; his image, implanted in us, preservesus amid every change; we are counted worthy to escape all the thingswhich may come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. 

LECTURE XII

 * * * * *

PROVERBS i. 28. 

_Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek meearly, but they shall not find me_. 

Christ's gospel gives out the forgiveness of sins; and as this is itsvery essence, so also in what we read connected with Christ's gospel, the tone of encouragement, of mercy, of loving-kindness to sinners, isever predominant. What was needed at the beginning of the gospel is noless needed now; we cannot spare one jot or one tittle of this graciouslanguage; now, as ever, the free grace, that most seems to be withoutthe law, does most surely establish the law. But yet there is anotherlanguage, which is to be found alike in the Old Testament and in theNew; a language not indeed so common as the language of mercy, but yetrepeated many times; a language which we also need as fully as it wasever needed, and of whose severity we can no more spare one tittle thanwe can spare anything of the comfort of the other. And yet this languagehas not, I think, been enforced so often as it should have been. Menhave rather shrunk from it, and seemed afraid of it; they have connectedit sometimes with certain foolish and presumptuous questions, which we, indeed, do well to turn from; but they have not seen, that with such ithas no natural connexion, but belongs to a certain fact in theconstitution of our nature, and is most highly moral and practical. 

The language to which. I allude is expressed, amongst other passages, by the words of the text. They speak of men's calling upon God, and ofhis refusing to hear them; of men's seeking God, and not finding him. Remember, at the same time, our Lord's words, "Ask, and ye shallreceive; seek, and ye shall find. " I purposely put together theseopposite passages, because the full character of God's Revelation isthus seen more clearly. Do we doubt that our Lord's words are true, anddo we not prize them as some of the most precious which he has left us?We do well to do so; but shall we doubt any more the truth of the wordsof the text; and shall we not consider them as a warning no less needfulthan the comfort in the other case? Indeed, as true as it is, that, ifwe seek God, we shall find him; so true is it that we may seek him, andyet not find him. 

Now, then, how to explain this seeming contradiction? We can see atonce, that these things are not said of the same persons, or rather ofthe same characters at the same time. They are said of the same persons:that is, there is no one here assembled who is not concerned with both, and to whom both may not be applicable. Only they are not and cannot beboth applicable to the same person at the very same time. If God will befound by us, at any given moment, on our seeking him, it is impossiblethat, at that same moment, he should also not be found. Thus far isplain to every one. 

And now, is it true of us, at this present time, that God will be foundby us if we seek him, or that he will not be found? If we say that hewill be found, then the words of the text are not applicable to us atpresent, although at some future time they may be; and then we have thatwell-known difficulty to encounter, to attempt to draw the mind'sattention to a future and only contingent evil. If we say that he willnot be found, then of what avail can it be to say any word more? Why sitwe in this place, to preach, or to listen to preaching, if God, afterall, will not be found? Or, again, should we say that there are some bywhom he will not be found, then who are they that are thus horriblymarked out from among their brethren? Can we dare to conceive of any oneamongst us that he is such an one; that there are some, nay, that thereis any one amongst us, to whom it is the same thing whether he willhear, or whether he will forbear; who may close his ears as safely asopen them, because God has turned his face from him for ever? It wereindeed horrible to suppose that any one of us were in such a state; andhappily it is a thought of horror which the truth may allow us to repel. 

But what, if I were to say, that now, at this very moment, the words ofthe text are both applicable to us, and not applicable? Is this acontradiction, and therefore impossible? Or is it but a seemingcontradiction only, and not only possible, but true? Let us see how thecase appears to be. 

We should allow, I suppose, that the words of the text were at no timein any man's earthly life so true as they will be at the day ofjudgment. The hardest heart, the most obdurate in sin, the most closedagainst all repentance, is yet more within the reach of grace, we shouldimagine, whilst he is alive and in health, than he will be at the day ofthe resurrection. We can admit, then, that the words of the text may betrue, in a greater or less degree; that they will be more entirely trueat the last day, than at any earlier period, but yet that they may besubstantially true, true almost beyond exception, in the life that nowis. Now carry this same principle a little farther, and we come to ourvery own case. The words of the text will be more true at the day ofjudgment, than they ever are on earth; and yet on earth they are oftentrue substantially and practically. And even so, they may be more trueto each of us a few years hence, than they are at this moment; and yet, in a certain degree, they may be true at this moment; true, notabsolutely and entirely, but partially; so true as to give a most solemnearnest, if we are not warned in time, of their more entire truthhereafter, --first, in this earthly life; then most perfectly of all, when we shall arise at the last day. 

It may be, then, that the words of the text, although not applicable tous in their full and most fatal sense, may yet be applicable to us in acertain degree: the evil which they speak of may be, not wholly futureand contingent, and a thing to be feared, but present in part, actual, and a matter of experience. This is not contradiction: it is notimpossible; it _may be_ our case. Let us see whether it really is so, that is, whether it is in any degree true of us, that when we call uponGod he will not answer; that when we seek him, we shall in any manner beunable to find him. 

It is manifest that, in proportion as Christ's words "Seek, and ye shallfind, " are true to any man, so are the words of the text less true tohim; and in proportion as Christ's words are less true to any one, soare the words of the text more true to him. Now, is Christ's promise, "Seek, and ye shall find, " equally true to all of us? Conceive ofone--the thing is rare, but not impossible, --of one who had been so keptfrom evil, and so happily led forward in good, that when arrived atboyhood, his soul had scarcely more stain upon it than when it was firstfully cleansed, and forgiven, in baptism! Conceive him speaking truth, without any effort, on all occasions; not greedy, not proud, notviolent, not selfish, not feeling conscious that he was living a lifeof sin, and therefore glad to come to God, rather than shrinking awayfrom him! Conceive how completely to such an one would Christ's words befulfilled, "Seek, and ye shall find!" When would his prayers beunblessed or unfruitful? When would he turn his thoughts to God withoutfeeling pleasure in doing so; without a lively consciousness of God'slove to him; without an assured sense of the reality of things not seen, of redemption and grace and glory? Would not the communion with God, enjoyed by one so untainted, come up to the full measure of those highpromises, "It shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer, and while they are yet speaking, I will hear?" Would it not be plain, that God was as truly found, by such a person, as he was sought insincerity and earnestness?

But now, take the most of us: suppose us not to have been kept carefullyfrom evil, nor led on steadily in good; suppose us to have reachedboyhood with bad dispositions, ready for the first temptation, withhabits of good uncultivated; suppose us to have no great horror of alie, when it can serve our turn; with much love of pleasure, and littlelove of our duty; with much, selfishness, and little or no thought ofGod: suppose such an one, so sadly altered from a state of baptismalpurity, to be saying his prayers as he had been taught to say them, andsaying them sometimes with a thought of their meaning and a wish thatGod would hear them. But does God hear them? I ask of your ownconsciences, whether you have had any sense that he has heard you?whether death and judgment, Christ and Christ's service, have becomemore real to you after such prayers? If not, then is it not manifest, that you have sought God, and have not found him; that you have calledupon him and he has not heard? You know by experience, that you are notas those true children who are ever with him, who listen to catch thelightest whisper of his Spirit, for whom, he, too, vouchsafes to blessthe faintest breathing of their prayer. 

Or, again, in trying to turn from evil to good, have you ever found yourresolutions give way, the ground which you had gained slide from underyour feet, till you fell back again to what you were at the beginning?Has this ever happened to us? If it has, then in that case, also, wesought God, but failed to find him; the victory was not yours, but theenemy's; the Spirit of Christ did not help you so as to conquer. 

Take another case yet again. Has it ever happened to any of you, to havedone a mischief to yourselves which you could not undo? It need not beone of the very highest kind; but has it ever happened, that, byneglect, you have lost ground in the society in which you are placed, which you cannot recover; that your contemporaries have gained anadvance upon you, while you have not time left to overtake them? Does itever happen that, from neglecting some particular element of learning inits proper season, and other things claiming your attention afterwards, you go on with a disadvantage, which you would fain remove, but cannot?Does it, in short, ever happen to any, that his complete success here isbecome impossible; that whatever prospects of another kind may be opento him elsewhere, yet that he cannot now be numbered amongst those whohave turned the particular advantages here afforded them to that endwhich they might and ought to have done?

To whomsoever this has happened, the truth of the words of the text ismatter of experience, not in their full and most dreadful extent, butyet quite enough to prove that they are true; and that just as he nowfeels them in part, so, if he continues to be what he is, he will oneday feel them wholly. He feels that it is possible to seek God, and notto find him; he has learnt by experience that neglected good, orcommitted evil, may be beyond the power of after-regret to undo. It istrue, that as yet, to him, other prospects may be open: prospects which, probably, he may deem no less fair than those which he has forfeited. This may be so; but the point to observe is, that one prospect was lostso irretrievably by his own fault, that afterwards, when he wished toregain it, he could not. Now God gives him other prospects, which he mayrealize: but as he forfeited his first prospect beyond recovery, so hemay do also with his last: and though ill-success at school may be madeup by success in another sphere, yet what is to make up for ill-successin the great business of life, when that, too, has been forfeited asirrecoverably; when his last chance is gone as hopelessly as his first?

Now, surely there is in all this an intelligible lesson. I am not at allexaggerating the importance of the particular prospect forfeited here:but I am pressing upon you, that this prospect may be, and often is, forfeited irrecoverably; that when you wish to regain it, it is toolate, and you cannot. And I press this, because it is a true type of thewhole of human life; because it is just as possible to forfeit salvationirrecoverably, as to forfeit that earthly good which is the prize ofwell-doing here, with this infinite difference, that the last forfeit isnot only irretrievable, but fatal; it can no more be made up for, thanit can be regained. Here, then, your present condition is a type of thecomplete truth of the text: but there are other points, to which Ialluded before, in which it is more than a type; it is the very truthitself, although, happily, only in an imperfect measure. That unansweredprayer, of which I spoke, those broken resolutions, --are they notactually a calling on God, without his hearing us; a seeking him, without finding him? We remember who it was that could say with truth tohis Father, "I know that thou nearest me always. " We know what it isthat hinders God from hearing us always; because we are not thoroughlyone in his Son Christ Jesus. But this unanswered prayer is not properlythe State of Christ's redeemed: it is an enemy that hath brought us tothis; the same enemy who will, in time, make all our prayers to beunanswered, as some are now; who will cause God, not only to be slow tolisten, but to refuse to listen for ever. Now we are not heard at once, we must repeat our prayers, with more and more earnestness, that God, atlast, may hear, and may bless us. But if, instead of repeating them themore, we do the very contrary, and repeat them the less; if, because wehave no comfort, and no seeming good from them, we give them upaltogether; then the time will surely come when all prayer will be butthe hopeless prayer of Esau, because it will be only the prayer of fear;because it will be only the dread of destruction that will, or can, moveus:--the love of good will have gone beyond recall. Such prayer does butask for pardon without repentance; and this never is, or canbe, granted. 

So then, in conclusion, that very feeling of coldness, and unwillingnessto pray, because we have often prayed in vain, is surely working in usthat perfect death, which is the full truth of the words of the text. Ofall of us, those who the least like to pray, who have prayed with theleast benefit, have the most need to pray again. If they have soughtGod, without finding him, let them take heed that this be not their casefor ever; that the truth, of which the seed is even now in them, may notbe ripened to their everlasting destruction, when all their seeking, andall their prayer, will be as rejected by God, as, in part, it hasbeen already. 

LECTURE XIII. 

 * * * * *

MARK xii. 34. 

_Thou art not far from the kingdom of God_. 

Whoever has gone up any hill of more than common height, may rememberthe very different impression which the self-same point, whether bush, or stone, or cliff, has made upon him as he viewed it from below andfrom above. In going up it seemed so high, that we fancied, if we wereonce arrived at it, we should be at the summit of our ascent; while, when we had got beyond it, and looked down upon it, it seemed almostsunk to the level of the common plain; and we wondered that it couldever have appeared high to us. 

What happens with any natural object according to the different pointsfrom which we view it, happens also to any particular stage ofadvancement in our moral characters. There is a goodness which appearsvery exalted or very ordinary, according as it is much above or muchbelow our own level. And this is the case with the expression of ourLord in the text, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. " Does thisseem a great thing or a little thing to be said to us? Does it give us anotion of a height which we should think it happiness to have readied;or of a state so little advanced, that it would be misery to be forcedto go back to it? For, according as it seems to us the one or the other, so we may judge of the greater or less progress which we have made inascending the holy mountain of our God. 

But while I say this, it is necessary to distinguish between two severalsenses, in which we may be said to be near to the kingdom of God, oractually in it. These two are in respect of knowledge, and in respect offeeling and practice. And our Lord's words seem to refer particularly toknowledge. The scribe to whom he used them, had expressed so just asense of the true way of pleasing God, had so risen above the commonfalse notions of his age and country, that his understanding seemed tobe ripe for the truths of that kingdom of God, which was to make theworship of God to consist in spirit and in truth. Now as far as theknowledge of the kingdom of God is concerned, although, undoubtedly, there are many amongst us who are deficient in it, yet it is true also, that a great many of us are in possession of it; we are familiar enoughwith the truths of the kingdom of God, and our understandings fullyapprove them. But we may be near to or far from the kingdom of God, inrespect also of feeling and practice; and this is the great matter thatconcerns us. It is here, then, that we should ask ourselves what wethink of our Lord's words in the text; and whether he to whom they werespoken appears to us an object of envy or of compassion; one whom weenvy for having advanced so far, or pity for not being advanced further. 

"Not far from the kingdom of God. " Again, if we take the words Kingdomof God in their highest sense, then the expression contains all that wecould desire to have said of us in this life; hope itself on this sideof the grave can go no higher. For as, in this sense, the kingdom of Godcannot be actually entered before our death; so the best thing that canbe said of us here, is, that we are not far from it; but we are in theland of Beulah, so happily imagined in the Pilgrim's Progress; all ofour pilgrimage completed, save the last act of crossing the river; withthe city of God full in sight, and with hearts ready to enter into it. In this sense, even St. Paul himself, when he wrote his last epistlefrom Rome, could say no more, could hope for, could desire no more, thanto be not far from the kingdom of God. 

Yet again, take the words "Kingdom of God" in their lowest sense, andthen it is woe to us all, if the expression in the text is all that canbe said of us; if, in this sense, we are only not far from the kingdomof God. For take the kingdom of God as God's visible Church, and then, if we are not Christians at all, but only not far from becoming so; ifwe have not received Christ, but are not far from receiving him; this isa state so imperfect, that he who is in it, has not yet reached to thebeginning of his Christian course; and we need not say how far he mustbe from its end, if he have not yet come as far as its beginning. 

Thus, in one sense, the words express something so high that nothing canbe higher; in another, something so low, that, to us, nothing can belower. We have yet to seek that sense, in which they may afford us auseful criterion of our own several states, by appearing high, perhaps, to some of us, and to others low. 

The sense which we seek is given by our Lord, when he declares that thekingdom of God is within us; or by St. Paul, when he tells us, that itis righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. And now it is nomore a thing which we cannot yet have reached, or, on the other hand, which we all have reached: there is now a great difference in us, someare far from it, some are near it, and some are in it; and thus it is, that they who are near it, seem in it to those who are afar off, andfar from it to those who are in it. 

Now, first, do they seem far from it? Then, indeed, ours is a happystate, as many of us as can truly feel that they live so constantly inholy and heavenly tempers, in such lively faith and love, so tasting allthe blessings of God's kingdom, its peace, and its hope, and its joy, that they cannot bear to think of that time, when these blessings werenot enjoyed except in prospect; when they rather desired to have faithand love, than could be said actually to have them; when their temperswere not holy and heavenly, although they were fully alive to theexcellence of their being so, and had seen them already cleansed fromthe opposites of such a state, from ill-nature, and passion, and pride. 

If any such there be, in whom good resolutions have long since ripenedinto good actions, and the continued good actions have now led toconfirmed good habits, how miserable will they think it to be only "notfar from the kingdom of God!" How ill could they bear to go over againthe struggle which used to accompany every action, when it was done indefiance of habits of evil; or to be called back to that condition whenresolutions for good were formed over and over again, because they wereso often broken, but had as yet rarely led to any solid fruit! Howthankful will they be to have escaped from that season when they wereseeking, but had not yet found; when they were asking of God, but hadnot yet received; when they were knocking, but the door had not yet beenopened! They were then, indeed, not far from the kingdom of God, butthey were still without its walls; they were still strangers, and notcitizens. It had held out to them a refuge, and they had fled to it assuppliants to the sanctuary; but they had not yet had the word of peacespoken, to bid them no more kneel without, as suppliants, but to enterand go in and out freely; for that all things were theirs, because theywere Christ's. 

I have dwelt purposely somewhat the longer upon this, because the morethat we can feel the truth of this picture, the more that we can putourselves into the position of those who are within the kingdom of God, and who, living in the light of it, look back with pity upon those whoare only kneeling without its gates, --the more strongly we shall feelwhat must be our condition, if those who are without its gates appear tous to be objects of envy rather than pity, because they are so near tothat place from which we feel ourselves to be so distant. Or, to speakwithout a figure, if we could but understand how persons advanced ingoodness would shrink from the thought of being now only resolving to begood, then we shall perceive how very evil must be our condition, ifthis very resolving to be good seems to us to be an advance sodesirable; if we are so far from being good actually, that the verysetting ourselves in earnest to seek for good strikes us as a point ofabsolute proficiency in comparison of our present degradation. 

Yet is not this the case with many of us? Do we not consider it a greatpoint gained, if we can be brought to think seriously, to pray inearnest, to read the Bible, to begin to look to our own ways and lives?We feel it for ourselves, and others also feel it for us: it is natural, it is unavoidable, that we feel great joy, that we think a great deal isdone, if we see any of you, after leading a life of manifestcarelessness, and therefore of manifest sin, beginning to take morepains with himself, and so becoming what is called somewhat more steadyand more serious. I know that the impression is apt to be too strongupon us: we are but too apt to boast for him who putteth on his armouras for him who putteth it off; because he who putteth on his armour atleast shows that he is preparing for the battle, which so many never doat all. We observe some of these signs of seriousness: we see perhaps, that a person begins to attend at the Communion; that he pays moreattention to his ordinary duties; that he becomes more regular. We seethis, and we are not only thankful for it, --this we ought to be, --but wesatisfy ourselves too readily that all is done: we reckon a person, somewhat too hastily, to be already belonging to the kingdom of God, because we have seen him turning towards it. Then, if he afterwards doesnot appear to be entered into it; if we see that he is not what weexpected, that he is no longer serious, no longer attentive to hiscommon duties, we are overmuch disappointed; and, perhaps are temptedtoo completely to despair for him. Is it not that we confounded togetherthe beginning and the end; the being good, and the trying to become so:the resolution with the act; the act with the habit? Did we not forgetthat he is not at once out of danger who begins to mend: that the firstsoftening of the dry burning skin, the first abating of the hard quickpulse, is far removed from the coolness, and steadiness, and even vigourof health restored, or never interrupted?

But what made us forget truths so obvious? What made us confound thingsso different that the most ignorant ought to be able to distinguishthem? Cannot we tell why it is? Is it not because there are so many inwhom we cannot see even as good signs as these, --of whom we cannot butfeel that it would be a great advance for them, a matter of earnestthankfulness, if we could only see that they were not far from thekingdom of God, --nay, even that their steps were tending thither? Let uslook ever so earnestly, let us watch ever so carefully, let us hopeever so charitably, we cannot see, we can scarcely fancy that we see, even the desire to turn to God. We do not see gross wickedness; it iswell; we see much that is amiable; that is well also: but the desire toturn to God, the tending of the steps towards the kingdom ofheaven, --that we cannot see. But this is a thing, it may be said, thatman cannot see: it may exist, although we cannot perceive it. Oh, thatit might and may be so! Yet, surely, as out of the abundance of theheart the mouth speaketh, so a principle so mighty as the desire ofturning to God cannot leave itself without a witness: some symptoms mustbe shown to those who are eagerly watching for them; some ground forhope must be afforded where hope is so ready to kindle. If no sign oflife appears, can the life indeed be stirring? And if the life be notstirring; if the disorder is going on in so many cases, raging, with nosymptom of abatement; is it not natural, that when we do see suchsymptoms, we should rejoice even with over-measure, that we shouldforget how much is yet to be done, when we see that something hasbeen done. 

To such persons, it would be an enviable state, to be not far from thekingdom of God. But what, then, must be their state actually? A hopefulone, according to many standards of judgment; a state that promiseswell, it may be, for a healthy and prosperous life, with many friends, perhaps with much distinction. We know that all this prospect may beblighted; still it exists at present;--the healthy constitution, theeasy fortune, the cheerful and good-humoured temper, the quickness andpower of understanding; all these, no doubt, are hopeful signs for aperiod of forty, or fifty, or perhaps sixty years to come. But what isto come then? what is the prospect for the next period, not of fifty, orsixty, not of a hundred, not of a thousand, years; not of any numberthat can be numbered, but of time everlasting? Is their actual state oneof hopeful promise for this period, for this life which no death shallterminate? Nay, is it a state of any promise at all, of any chance atall? Suppose, for a moment, one with a crippled body, full of the seedsof hereditary disease, poor, friendless, irritable in temper, low inunderstanding; suppose such an one just entering upon youth, and askyourselves, for what would you consent that his prospects should beyours? What should you think would be your chance of happiness in life, if you were beginning in such a condition? Yet, I tell you that poor, diseased, irritable, friendless cripple has a far better prospect ofpassing his fifty, or sixty, years, tolerably, than they who have notbegun to turn towards God have of a tolerable eternity. Much morewretched is the promise of their life; much more justly should we betempted, concerning them, to breathe that fearful thought, that it weregood for them if they had never been born. And now if, as by miracle, that cripple's limbs were to be at once made sound, if the seeds ofdisease were to vanish, if some large fortune were left him, if histemper sweetened, and his mind became vigorous, should not we beexcused, considering what he had been and what he now was, if we, for amoment, forgot the uncertainty of the future; if we thought that apromise so changed, was almost equivalent to performance? And may notthis same excuse be urged for some over-fondness of confidence for theirwell-doing whom we see so near to the kingdom of God, when we considerhow utter is the misery, how hopeless the condition of those who do notappear to have, as yet, stirred one single step towards it?

LECTURE XIV. 

 * * * * *

MATTHEW xxii. 14. 

_For many are called, but few are chosen_. 

The truth here expressed is one of the most solemn in the world, andwould be one of the most overwhelming to us, if habit had not, in amanner, blunted our painful perception of it. There is contained in itmatter of thought more than we could exhaust, and deeper than we couldever fathom. But on this I will not attempt to enter. I will rather takethat view of the text which concerns us here; I will see in how manysenses it is true, and with what feeling we should regard it. 

"Many are called, but few are chosen. " The direct application of thiswas to the parable of those invited to the supper; in which it had beenrelated, how a great multitude had been invited, but how one amongthem--and the application as well as the fact in human life, requirethat this _one_ should be taken only as a specimen of a greatnumber--had been found unworthy to enjoy the feast prepared for them. They had not on the wedding garment; they had not done their part to fitthemselves for the offered blessing: therefore they were called, but notchosen. God had willed to do them good, but they would not; andtherefore, though he had called them at the beginning, he, in the end, cast them out. 

We have to do, then, not with an arbitrary call and an arbitrary choice, as if God called many in mockery, meaning to choose out of them only afew, and making his choice independently of any exertion of theirs. Thepicture is very different; it is a gracious call to us all, to come andreceive the blessing; it is a reluctant casting out the greatest part ofus, because we would not try to render ourselves fit for it. 

I said, that we would take the words of the text in reference toourselves, for here, too, it is true, that many are called, but few arechosen. It is a large number of you, which I see before me; and if weadd to it all those who, within my memory, have sat in the same placesbefore you, we shall have a number very considerable indeed. All thesehave been called; they have been sent here to enjoy the same advantageswith each other; and those advantages have been put within their reach. They have entered into a great society which, on the one hand, mightraise them forward, or, on the other, depress them. There has been asufficient field for emulation: there have been examples andinstructions for good; there have been results of credit and of realimprovement made attainable to them, which might have lasted all theirlives long. To this, they have been all, in their turns, called; and outof those so called, have all, or nearly all, been chosen? I am notspeaking of those, who, I trust, would be a very small number, to whomthe trial has failed utterly, who could look back on their stay herewith no feelings but those of shame. But would there not be a very largenumber, to whom their stay here has been a loss, compared with what itmight have been; who have reaped but a very small part of thoseadvantages to which they had been at first called? Are there not toomany who must look back on a part, at least, of their time here aswasted; on the seeds of bad habits sown, which, if conquered byafter-care, yet, for a long time, were injurious to them? Are there nottoo many who carry away from here, instead of good notions, to beripened and improved, evil notions, to be weeded out and destroyed? Arethere not, in short, a great number who, after having had a greatadvantage put within their reach, and purchased for them by theirfriends, at a great expense, have made such insufficient use of theiropportunities, to say nothing stronger, as to make it a questionafterwards, whether it might not have been better for them had theynever come here at all?

Thus far I have been speaking of what are called the advantages of thisplace in our common language. That argument, which Butler has so noblyhandled, in one of the greatest works in our language, the resemblance, namely, between the course of things earthly and that of thingsspiritual, is one which we should never fail to notice. We can discernthe type, as it were, of the highest truth of our Lord's sayings in theexperience of our common life in worldly things. When he tells us, speaking of things spiritual, that "many are called, but few arechosen;" that "whoso hath, to him shall be given; but from him that hathnot shall be taken away even that which he hath, "--although the highesttruth contained in these words be yet, in part, matter of faith, for wehave not yet seen the end of God's dealings with us: yet what we do see, the evident truth of the words, that is, in respect to God's dealingswith us in the course of his earthly providence, may reasonably assureus of their truth no less in respect to those dealings of God which asyet are future. I began, therefore, with reminding you of the truth ofthe words of the text with regard to worldly advantages; that even here, on this small scale, the general law holds good; that more things areprovided for us than we will consent to use; that, in short, "many arecalled, but few are chosen. "

But it were ill done to limit our view to this: we are called to muchmore than worldly advantages; and what if here, too, we add one moreexample to confirm our Lord's words, that "many are called, but fewchosen?" Now here, as I said, it is very true that God's choice is asyet not a matter of sight or of certainty to us; we cannot yet say ofourselves, or of any other set of living men, that "few are chosen. " Butthough the full truth is not yet revealed, still, as there is a type ofit in our worldly experience, so there is also a higher type, anearnest, of it in our spiritual experience: there is a sense, and that avery true and a very important one, in which we can say already, saynow, actually, in the life that now is; say, even in the early stage ofit, that some are, and some are not, "chosen. "

We have all been called, in a Christian sense, inasmuch as we have beenall introduced into Christ's church by Baptism; and a very largeproportion of us have been called again, many of us not very long since, at our Confirmation. We have been thus called to enter into Christ'skingdom: we have been called to lead a life of holiness and happinessfrom this time forth even for ever. Nothing can be stronger than thelanguage in which the Scripture speaks of the nature of our highcalling: "All things, " says St. Paul to the Corinthians, "all things areyours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, or the world, or life, ordeath, or things present, or things to come, all are yours; and ye areChrist's, and Christ is God's. " Now, if this be the prize to which weare called, who are they who are also chosen to it? In the first andmost complete sense, no doubt, those who have entered into their rest;who are in no more danger, however slight; with whom the struggle isaltogether past, and the victory securely won. These are entered withinthe veil, whither we can as yet penetrate only in hope. But hope, inits highest degree, differs little from assurance; and even, as wedescend lower and lower, still, where hope is clearly predominant, thereis, if not assurance, yet a great encouragement; and the Scripture, which delights to carry encouragement to the highest pitch to those whoare following God, allows of our saying of even these that they areGod's chosen. It gives them, as it were, the title beforehand, to makethem feel how doubly miserable it must be not only not to obtain it, butto forfeit it after it had been already ours. So then, there are sensesin which we may say that some are chosen now; although, strictlyspeaking, the term can by us be applied, in its full sense, to thoseonly who are passed beyond the reach of evil. 

Those, then, we may call chosen, who, having heard their call, haveturned to obey it, and have gone on following it. Those we may callchosen, --I do not say chosen irrevocably, but chosen now; chosen so thatwe may be very thankful to God on their behalf, and they thankful forthemselves, --who, since their Confirmation, or since a period moreremote, have kept God before their face, and tried to do His will. Thoseare, in the same way, chosen, who having found in themselves the sinwhich did most easily beset them, have struggled with it, and wholly, orin a great measure, have overcome it. Thus, they are chosen, who, havinglived either in the frequent practice of selfish, extravagance, or offalsehood, or of idleness, or of excess in eating and drinking, haveturned away from these things, and, for Christ's sake, have renouncedthem. They are chosen, I think, in yet a higher sense, who, having foundtheir besetting sin to be, not so much any one particular fault, as ageneral ungodly carelessness, a lightness which for ever hindered themfrom serving God, have struggled with this most fatal enemy; and, evenin youth, and health, and happiness, have learnt what it is to besober-minded, what it is to think. Now, such as these have, in a manner, entered into their inheritance; they are not merely called, but chosen. God and spiritual things are not mere names to them, they are a reality. Such persons have tasted of the promises; they have known thepleasure--and what pleasure is comparable to it?--of feeling the bondsof evil passion or evil habit unwound from about their spirit; they havelearnt what is that glorious liberty of being able to abstain from thethings which we condemn, to do the things which we approve. They havefelt true sense of power succeed to that of weakness. It is a delightfulthing, after a long illness, after long helplessness, when our legs havebeen unable to support our weight, when our arms could lift nothing, ourhands grasp nothing, when it was an effort to raise our head from thepillow, and it tired us even to speak in a whisper, --it is a delightfulthing to feel every member restored to its proper strength; to find thatexercise of limb, of voice, of body, which had been so long a pain, become now a source of perpetual pleasure. This is delightful; it paysfor many an hour of previous weakness. But it is infinitely moredelightful to feel the change from weakness to strength in our souls; tofeel the languor of selfishness changed for the vigour of benevolence;to feel thought, hope, faith, love, which before were lying, as it were, in helplessness, now bounding in vigorous activity; to find the soul, which had been so long stretched as upon the sick bed of this earth, nowable to stand upright, and looking and moving steadily towards heaven. 

These are chosen; and they to whom this description does in no degreeapply, they are not chosen. They are not chosen in any sense, they arecalled only. And, now, what is the proportion between the one and theother; are there as many chosen as there have been many called? Or doChrist's words apply in our case no less than in others; that thoughthey who are called are many, yet they who are chosen are few?

This I dare not answer; there is a good as well as an evil which isunseen to the world at large, unseen even by all but those who watch usmost nearly and most narrowly. All we can say is, that there are toomany, who we must fear are not chosen; there are too few, of whom we canfeel sure that they are. Yet hope is a wiser feeling than its opposite;it were as wrong as it would be miserable to abandon it. How gladlywould we hope the best things of all those whom we saw this morning atChrist's holy table! How gladly would we believe of all such, that theywere more than called merely; that they had listened to the call: thatthey had obeyed it; that they had already gained some Christianvictories; that they were, in some sense, not called only, but chosen. But this we may say; that hope which we so long to entertain, that hopetoo happy to be at once indulged in, you may authorize us to feel it;you may convert it into confidence. Do you ask how? By going on steadilyin good, by advancing from good to better, by not letting impressionsfade with time. Now, with many of you, your confirmation is little morethan three months distant; when we next meet at Christ's table, it willhave passed by nearly half-a-year. It may be, that, in that addedinterval, it will have lost much of its force; that, from variouscauses, evil may have abounded in you more than good; that then shame, or a willing surrender of yourselves to carelessness, will keep awayfrom Christ's Communion, many who have this day joined in it. But, ifthis were not to be so; if those, whom we have seen with joy this daycommunicating with us in the pledges of Christian fellowship, shouldcontinue to do so steadily; if, in the meantime, traits shall appear inyou in other things that our hope was well founded; if the hatred ofevil and the love of good were to be clearly manifest in you; if bysigns not to be mistaken by those who watch earnestly for them, we mightbe assured that your part was taken, that you were striving with us inthat service of our common Master, in which we would fain live and die;if evil was clearly lessened among us--not laughed at, but discouragedand put down; if instead of those turning away, who have now been withus at Christ's table, others, who have now turned away, should then beadded to the number; then we should say, not doubtingly, that you werechosen: that you had tasted of the good things of Christ; that the goodwork of God was clearly begun in you. We might not, indeed, be withoutcare, either for you or for ourselves: God forbid, that, in that sense, any of us should deem that we were chosen, until the grave has put usbeyond temptation. But how happy were it to think of you as Christ'schosen, in that sense which should be a constant encouragement to usall: to think of you as going on towards God; to think of you as livingto him daily; to think of you as on his side against all his enemies; tothink of you as led by his Spirit, as living members of his holy andglorious Church, --militant now, in heaven triumphant!

LECTURE XV. 

 * * * * *

LUKE xi. 25. 

_When he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished_. 

JOHN v. 42. 

_I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you_. 

These passages, of which the first is taken from the gospel of thismorning's service, the other from the second lesson, differ in words, but their meaning is very nearly the same. The house which was empty, swept and garnished, was especially one empty of the love of God. Whatever evil there may not have been in it; whatever good there mayhave been in those of whom Christ spoke in the second passage: yet itand they agreed in this; one thing they had not, which alone was worth, all the rest besides; they had not the love of God. 

And so it is still; many are the faults which we have not; many are thegood qualities which we have; but the life is wanting. What is so rareas to find one who is not indifferent to God? What so rare, even rarerthan the other, as to find one who actually loves him?

Therefore it is that those who go in at the broad gate of destructionare many, and those who go in at the narrow gate of life are few. Fordestruction and life are but other terms for indifference to God on theone hand, and love to him on the other. All who are indifferent to him, die; a painless death of mere extinction, if, like the brute creation, they have never been made capable of loving him; or a living death ofperpetual misery, if, like evil spirits and evil men, they might haveloved him and would not. And so all who love him, live a life, fromfirst to last, without sin and sorrow, if, like the holy angels, theyhave loved him always; a life partaking at first of death, butbrightening more and more unto the perfect day, if, like Christians, they were born in sin, but had been redeemed and sanctified torighteousness. 

Whoever has watched human character, whether in the young or the old, must be well aware of the truth of this: he will know that the value ofany character is in proportion to the existence or to the absence ofthis feeling, or rather, I should say, this principle. An exception may, perhaps, be made for a small, a very small number of fanatics; anapparent exception likewise exists in the case of many who seem to bereligious, but who really are not so. The few exceptions of the formercase are so very few, that we need not now stop to consider them, nor toinquire how far even these would be exceptions if we could read theheart as God reads it. The seeming exceptions being cases either ofhypocrisy, or of very common self-deceit, we need not regard either; forthey are, of course, no real objection to the truth of the generalstatement. It remains true, then, generally, that the value of anycharacter is in proportion to the existence, or to the absence, in it ofthe love of God. 

But is there not another exception to be made for the case of children, and of very young persons? Are they capable of loving God? and are nottheir earthly relations, their parents especially, put to them, as itwere, in the place of God, as objects of trust, of love, of honour, ofobedience, till their minds can open to comprehend the love of theirFather who is in heaven? And does not the Scripture itself, in the fewplaces in which it seems directly to address children, content itselfwith directing them to obey and honour their parents? Some notions ofthis sort are allowed, I believe, to serve sometimes as an excuse, whenyoung persons are blamed for being utterly wanting in a sense of dutyto God. 

The passages which direct children to obey their parents, are of thesame kind with those, directing slaves to obey their masters, andmasters to be kind to their slaves; like those, also, which John theBaptist addressed to the soldiers and publicans: in none of all whichthere is any command to love God, but merely a command to fulfil thatparticular duty which most arose out of the particular relation, orcalling of the persons addressed. In fact, when parents are addressed, they are directed only to do their duties to their children, just aschildren are directed to do theirs to their parents; in both casesalike, the common duty of parents and children to God is not dwelt upon, because that is a duty which does not belong to them as parents, or aschildren, but as human beings; and as such, it belongs to all alike. Infact, the very language of St. Paul's command to children implies this;for he says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this isright:" right, that is, in the sight of God: so that the very reason forwhich children are to discharge their earthly duties is, because thatearthly duty is commanded by, or involved in, their heavenly duty; ifthey do not do it, they will not please God. But it is manifest that, inthis respect, there is for all of us one only law, so soon as we areable to understand it. The moment that a child becomes capable ofunderstanding anything about God and Christ, --and how early that is, every parent can testify, --that moment the duty to love God and Christbegins. It were absurd to say, that this duty has not begun at the ageof boyhood. A boy is able to understand the force of religious motives, as well as he can that of earthly motives: he cannot understand either, perhaps, so well as he will hereafter; but he understands both enough, for the purposes of his salvation; enough, to condemn him before God, ifhe neglects them; enough to make him derive the greatest benefit fromfaithfully observing them. 

And what can have been the purpose with which the only particular of ourLord's early life has been handed down to us, if it were not to directour attention to this special truth, that our youth, no less than ourriper age, belongs to God? "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father'sbusiness?" were words spoken by our Lord when he was no more than twelveyears old. At twelve years old, he thought of preparing himself for theduties of his after-life; and of preparing himself for them, becausethey were God's will. He was to be about his Father's business. This isChrist's example for the young; this, and scarcely anything more thanthis, is recorded of his early years. Those are not like Christ who, atthat same age, or even older, never think at all of the business oftheir future lives, still less would think of it, not as the means oftheir own maintenance or advancement, but as the duty which they oweto God. 

Such as these are the very persons whose hearts are like the house inthe parable, empty, swept, and garnished. The house so described in theparable is one out of which an evil spirit has just departed. In case ofthe young, the evil spirit in this sense, that is, as representing someone particular favourite sin, may perhaps have never entered it. Thatempty, swept, and garnished house, how like is it to what I have seen, to what I am seeing so continually, when a boy comes here with muchstill remaining of the innocence of childhood! Evil spirit, in the senseof any one particular vice, there is none to be found in that heart, norhas there been any ever. It is empty, swept, and garnished: there is theabsence of evil; there are the various faculties, the furniture, as theymay be called, of the house of our spirits, which the spirit uses eitherfor evil or for good. There is innocence, then; there is, also, thepromise of power. God hath richly endowed the earthly house of ourtabernacle: various and wonderful is the furniture of body and mind withwhich it is supplied. How can we help admiring that open and cheerfulbrow which, as yet, no care or sin has furrowed; those light and activelimbs, full of health and vigour; the eye so quick; the ear so undulled;the memory so ready; the young curiosity so eager to take in newknowledge; the young feelings, not yet spoiled by over-excitement, readyto admire, ready to love? There is the house, the house of God'sbuilding, the house which must abide for ever; but where is the spiritto inhabit it? Evil spirit there is none: is it, then, possessed by theSpirit of God? Has the fire from heaven as yet descended upon thathouse, --the living sign of God's presence, which alone can convert thehouse of perishable clay into the everlasting temple?

Can that blessed Spirit of God be indeed there, and yet no sign of hispresence be manifest? It may be so, or to speak more truly, it mighthave been supposed to be so, if God's word had not declared thecontrary. What God's secret workings are; in how many ways, to usinscrutable, he may pervade all nature; in how many cases he may be nearus, and we know it not; may, perhaps, be amongst those real mysteries, those truths revealed to none, nor to be revealed; those yet unclearedforests, so to speak, of the world of nature, into which the light ofgrace has not been permitted to penetrate. But all such mysteries are tous as if they did not exist at all: we have nothing to do with them. Godhas told us nothing of his unseen and undiscernible presence; when andwhere he is so present, he is to us as if he were not present at all. God was in the wilderness of Horeb before the bush was kindled; but hewas not there for Moses. God, in some sense discernible, it may be, toother beings, may be in that house which, to us is empty; but God, ourown God, the Holy Spirit, into whose service we were baptized, where heis, the house is not empty to us, but full of light. Invisible inhimself, the signs of his presence are most visible: where no works, nofruits of the Holy Spirit are to be discerned, there, according to ourLord's express declaration, there the Holy Spirit is not. 

But the light which declares his presence may indeed be a little spark;just to be seen, and no more. It may show that he has not abandoned allhis right to the house of our tabernacle as yet; that he would desire topossess us fully. Such a little spark, such an evidence of the HolySpirit's presence, is to be found in the outward profession ofChristianity. They who call Jesus Lord, do it by the Holy Ghost; and, therefore, it is quite true in this sense, that in every baptizedChristian, who has not utterly apostatized, there is that faint sign ofthe Holy Spirit's still having a claim upon him; he is not yet utterlycast off. This is true; but it is not to our present purpose; such afeeble sign is a sign of God's yet unwearied mercy, but no sign of oursalvation. The presence with which the parable is concerned, is a farmore effectual presence than this; the house in which there is no morethan such a faint sign of a divine inhabitant, is, in the language ofthe parable, empty. To no purpose of our salvation is the Spirit of Godpresent in the house, when the light of his presence does not flashforth from every part of it, when it is not manifest, not only that hehas not quite cast it off to go to ruin, but that he has been pleased tomake it his temple. 

In this sense, therefore, in this practical, scriptural, Christiansense, those many young minds, which we have seen so often, may truly becalled empty. But will they remain so long? How often have I seen theearly innocence of boyhood overcast; the natural simplicity of boyhood, its open truth, its confident affection, its honest shame, perverted, blunted, hardened! How often have I seen the seven evil spirits enter inand dwell there, --I know not, and never may know, whether to be cast outagain, or to abide for ever. But I have seen them enter, and, whilst theperson was yet within my view, I have not seen them depart. And why havethey entered; why have they marred that which was so beautiful? For oneonly reason, --because the house was empty, because the Spirit of God wasnot there: there was no love of God, no thought of God. Mere innocencetaints and spoils as surely before the influence of the world, as trueprinciple flourishes in spite of it, and strengthens. This, too, I haveseen, not once only: I have seen the innocence of early boyhoodsanctified by something better than innocence, which gave a promise ofabiding. I have seen, in other words, that the house was not empty; thatthe Spirit of God was there. I have watched the effect of thoseinfluences, which you know so well: the second half-year came, a periodwhen mere innocence is sure to be worn away, greatly tainted, if notutterly gone; but still, in the cases which I am now alluding to, thepromise of good was not less, but greater, there was a more tried, and, therefore, a stronger goodness. I have watched this, too, till it passedon, out of my sight. I never saw the blessed Spirit of God depart fromthe house which he had chosen: I well believe that he abides in itstill, and will abide in it even to the day of Jesus Christ. 

This I have seen, and this I shall continue to see; for still the greatwork of evil and of good is going on; still the house, at first empty, is possessed by the spirits of evil, or by the Spirit of God. And if wedo not see the signs of the Spirit of God, we are but too sure that theevil spirit is there. We know him by the manifold signs of folly, coarseness, carelessness; even when we see not, as yet, his worse fruitsof falsehood and profligacy. We know him by the sign of an increased, and increasing selfishness, the everlasting cry of the thousand passionsof our nature, all for ever calling out, "Give, give;" all for everimpatient, complaining, when their gratification is withheld, when thecall of duty is set before them. We know him by pride andself-importance, as if nothing was so great as self, as if our ownopinions, judgment, feelings were to be consulted in all things. We knowhim by the deep ungodliness which he occasions--no thought of God, muchless any love of him; living utterly without him in the world, or, atleast, whilst health and prosperity continue. These are the fatal signswhich show that the house is no longer empty; that the evil spirits haveentered in, and dwell there, to make it theirs, as too often happens, for time and for eternity. 

LECTURE XVI. 

 * * * * *

MATHEW xi. 10. 

_I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way beforethee_. 

If it was part of God's dispensation, that there should be one toprepare the way before Christ's first coming, it may be expected muchmore, that there should be some to prepare the way before his second. And so it is expressed in the collect for the third Sunday in Advent: "OLord Jesus Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger toprepare thy way before thee; grant that the ministers and stewards ofthy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turningthe hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thysecond coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people inthy sight, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen. " NOW, in what does this preparingfor him consist; and what is its object? The Scripture will inform us asto both. The object is, "Lest he come and smite the earth with a curse;"lest, when he shall come, his coming, which should be our greatest joyand happiness, should be our everlasting destruction; for there canabide before him nothing that is evil. This is the object of preparingfor Christ's coming. Next, in what does the preparation consist? Itconsists in teaching men to live above the common notions of their ageand country; to raise their standard higher; to live after what is rightin God's judgment, which often casts away, as faulty and bad, what menwere accustomed to think good. And as the people of Israel, althoughthey had God's revelation among them, had yet let their standard of goodand evil become low, even so it has been in the Christian Israel. Wehave God's will in our hands, yet our judgments are not formed upon it;and, therefore, they who would prepare us for Christ's coming, must setbefore us a commandment which is new, although old: in one sense old, inevery generation, inasmuch as it is the same which we had from thebeginning; in another sense, in every generation more new, inasmuch, asthe habits opposed to it have become the more confirmed; and the longerthe night has lasted, the more strange to our eyes is the burst of thereturning light. 

But when we thus speak of the common notions of our age and countrybeing deficient, and thus, in effect, commend notions which would besingular, do we not hold a language inconsistent with our commonlanguage and practice? Do we not commonly regard singularity as a fault, and attach a considerable authority to the consent of men in general?Nay, do we not often appeal to this consent as to a proof which a sanemind must admit as decisive? Even in speaking of good and evil, have notthe very words gained their present sense because the common consent ofmankind has agreed to combine notions of self-satisfaction, of honour, and of love, with what we call good, and the contrary with what wecall evil?

A short time may, perhaps, not be misapplied in endeavouring to explainthis matter; in showing where, and for what reasons, the common opinionof our society is to be followed, where it is to be suspected, andwhere it is absolutely to be shunned or trampled under foot, as clearlyand certainly evil. 

I must begin with little things, in order to show the whole questionplainly. Take those tastes in us which most resemble the instincts of abrute; and you will find that in these, as with instinct, common consentbecomes a sure rule. When I speak of those tastes which most resembleinstincts, I mean those in which nature, doing most for us at first, leaves least for us to learn for ourselves. This seems the character ofinstinct: it is far more complete than reason in its first stage, but itadmits of no after improvement; the brute in the thousandth generationis no way advanced beyond the brute in the first. Of our tastes, even ofthose belonging to our bodily senses, that which belongs to what arecalled particularly our organs of taste is the one most resembling aninstinct: we have less to do for its improvement than in any otherinstance. Men being here, then, upon an equality, with a faculty givento all by nature, and improved particularly by none, those who differfrom the majority are likely to differ not from excellence but fromdefect: not because they have a more advanced reason, but because theyhave a less healthy instinct, than their neighbours. Thus, in thosematters which relate to the sense of taste--I am obliged to take thisalmost trivial instance, because it so well illustrates the principle ofthe whole question--we hold the consent of men in general to be a goodrule. If any one were to choose to feed upon what this common taste hadpronounced to be disgusting, we should not hesitate to say that such anappetite was diseased and monstrous. 

Now, let us take our senses of sight and hearing, and we shall find thatjust in the proportion in which these less resemble instincts than thesense of taste, so is common consent a less certain rule. Up to acertain point they are instincts: there are certain sounds which, Isuppose, are naturally disagreeable to the ear; while, on the otherhand, bright and rich colours are, perhaps, naturally attractive to theeye. But, then, sight and hearing are so connected with our minds thatthey are susceptible of very great cultivation, and thus differ greatlyfrom instincts. As the mind opens, outward sights and sounds becomeconnected with a great number of associations, and thus we learn tothink the one or the other beautiful, for reasons which really dependvery much on the range of our own ideas. Consider, for a moment, thebeautiful in architecture. If the model of the leaning tower of Pisawere generally adopted in our public buildings, all men's common sensewould cry out against it as a deformity, because a leaning wall wouldconvey to every mind the notion of insecurity, and every body would feelthat it was unpleasant to see a building look exactly as if it weregoing to fall down. Now, what I have called common sense is, in amanner, the instinct of our reason: it is that uniform level of reasonwhich all sane persons reach to, and the wisest in matters within itsprovince do not surpass. But go beyond this, and architecture is nolonger a matter of mere common sense, but of science, and of cultivatedtaste. Here the standard of beauty is not fixed by common consent; but, in the first instance, devised or discovered by the few: and, so far asit is received by the many, received by them on the authority of thefew, and sanctioned, so to speak, not so much from real sympathy andunderstanding, as from a reasonable trust and deference to those who arebelieved the best judges. 

Here, then, we suppose that the common judgment is right; but weperceive a difference between this case and the one mentioned before, inasmuch as in the first instance the right judgment of the mass ofmankind is their own; in the second instance, they have adopted it outof deference to others. Not only, then, will men's common judgment beright in matters of instinct and of common sense, but also in highermatters, where, although they could not have discovered what was right, yet they were perfectly willing to adopt it, when discovered by others. And this opens a very wide field. For in all matters which come underthe dominion of fashion, where the avowed object is the convenience orgratification of society, men listen to those who profess to teach themwith almost an excess of docility: they will adopt sometimes fashionswhich are not convenient. But yet, as men can tell well enough byexperience whether they do find a thing convenient and agreeable or not, so it is most likely that fashions which continue long and generallyprevalent are founded upon sound principles; because else men, beingwell capable of knowing what convenience is, and being also welldisposed to follow it, would neither have been very long or verygenerally mistaken in this matter; nor would have acquiesced in theirmistake contentedly. 

We do perfectly right, then, to regard the common opinion as a rule inall points of dress, in our houses and furniture, in those lighterusages of society which come under the denomination of manners, asdistinguished from morals. In all these, if the mass of mankind couldnot find out what would best suit them, yet they are quite ready toadopt it when it is found out; and so they equally arrive at truth. Buttake away this readiness, and the whole case is altered. If there be anypoint in which men are not ready to adopt what is best for them; if theyare either indifferent, or still more, if they are averse to it; ifthey thus have neither the power of discovering it for themselves, northe will to avail themselves of it, when discovered for them; then it isclear that, in such a point, the common judgment will be of no value, nay, there will even be a presumption that it is wrong. 

Now as the common consent of mankind was most sure in matters wheretheir sense most resembled instinct, that is, where nature had done mostfor them, and left them least to do for themselves; as here, therefore, they who are sound are the great majority, and the exceptions are nobetter than disease; so if there be any part of us which is the directopposite to instinct, a part in which nature has done next to nothingfor us, and all is to be done by ourselves; then, here the commonconsent of mankind will be of the least value; here the majority will behelpless and worthless; and they who are happy enough to be exceptionsto this majority, will be no other than Christ's redeemed. 

Now, again, if this deficient part of our nature could be seen purelydistinct from every other; if it alone dictated our language, andinspired our actions, then it would follow, that language which mustever be fixed by the majority, would be, in fact, the language of theworld of infinite evil; and our actions those of mere devils. Then, whoever of us would be saved, must needs begin by forswearing, altogether, both the language and the actions of his fellow-men. Butthis is not so; in almost every instance this deficient part of ournature acts along with others that are not so corrupted; it mars theirwork, undoubtedly; it often confuses and perverts our language; italways taints our actions; but it does not wholly usurp either the oneor the other; and thus, by God's blessing, man's language yet affords ahigh witness to divine truth, and even men's judgments and actionstestify, though with infinite imperfection, to the existence andexcellence of goodness. 

And this it is which forms one of the great perplexities of life; for asthere is enough of what is right in men's judgments and conduct toforbid us from saying, that we must take the very rule of contraries, and think and do just the opposite to the opinions and practice of menin general; so, on the other hand, there is always so much wrong inthem, that we may never dare to follow them as a standard, but shallfind, that if trusted to as such, they will inevitably betray us. Sothat in points of greater moment than mere manners and fashion, it willever be true, that if we would be prepared for Christ's coming, we mustrise to a far higher standard than that of society in general; that inthe greatest concerns of human life, the practice of the majority, though always containing something of good, is yet in its prevailingcharacter, as regards God, so evil, that they who are content to followit cannot be saved. 

This is the explanation of the apparent difficulty in the general, andthus, while acknowledging that there are points in which men, by commonconsent, make out what is best; and others in which, although they donot make it out, nor at first appreciate it, yet they are very willingto adopt it upon trust, and so come by experience to value it; while, therefore, there are a great many things in which singularity is eithera disease or a foolishness; so again there are other points in which menin general have not the power to make out what is good, nor yet thedocility to adopt it; and, therefore, in these points, which relate tothe great matters of life, singularity is wisdom and salvation, and hewho does as others do, perishes. That is what is called the corruptionof human nature. I shall attempt, on another occasion, to go into somefurther details, and show, by common examples, how strangely ourjudgment and practice contain, with much that is right, just that onetaint or defect which, as a whole, spoils them. And this one defect willbe found to be, as the Scripture declares, a defect in our sense of ourrelation towards God. 

LECTURE XVII. 

 * * * * *

1 CORINTHIANS ii. 12. 

_We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which isof God_. 

And, therefore, he goes on to say, our language is different from thatof others, and not always understood by them; the natural man receivethnot the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can heknow them, because they are spiritually discerned. That is, they arediscerned only by a faculty which he has not, namely, by the Spirit;and, therefore, as beings devoid of reason cannot understand the truthsof science, or of man's wisdom, for they are without the faculty whichcan discern them; so beings devoid of God's Spirit cannot understand thetruths of God. 

Now, in order to turn this passage to our profit, we need not considerthose who are wholly without God's Spirit, or inquire whether, indeed, there be any such; it is not that there are two broadly marked divisionsof all men, those who have not the Spirit of God at all, and those whohave it abundantly: if it were so, the separation of the great day ofjudgment would be begun already, nor would it require, in order toeffect it rightly, the wisdom of Him who trieth the very hearts andreins. No doubt there will be at last but two divisions of us all, thesaved and the lost; but now the divisions are infinite; so much so thatthe great body of us offer much matter for hope as well as for fear. Wecannot say, that they are without the Spirit of God; yet neither can wesay that they are led by the Spirit, so as to be God's true servants. Wecannot say, that the things of God's are absolutely to them asfoolishness; yet certainly, we cannot say either, that they are to themas the divinest wisdom. 

And here we return to the subject on which I was speaking last Sunday. It is because we are not led by the Spirit of God, but have within usmuch of the spirit of the world, that our judgments of right and wrongare so faulty; and that this faultiness is particularly seen in ourfaint sense of our relations to God. These relations seem continuallyfoolishness to us, because they are spiritually discerned, and we haveso little of God's Spirit to enable us to discern them. And ourblindness here affects our whole souls; we have, in consequence of it, amuch fainter perception even of those truths which reason can discern byherself; or, at any rate, if we do not doubt them, they have over usmuch less influence. 

Now we will first see how much of natural reason, and even of the Spiritof God, does exist in our common judgments; for it is fair to see and toallow what there is of right in our language and sentiments, as well asto note what is wrong. Reason influences thus much, that we not onlycommend good generally, and blame evil; but even, in particular cases, we commend, I think, each separate virtue, and we blame each separatevice. I never heard of justice, truth, kindness, self-denial, &c. , beingother than approved of in themselves; or injustice, falsehood, malice, and selfishness being other than condemned. And the Spirit of Godinfluences at least thus much, that we shrink from direct blasphemy andprofaneness; we cannot but respect those whom we believe to be livingsincerely in the fear of God; and further, if we thought our deathnear, we should desire to hear of God, and to depart from this lifeunder his favour. No doubt, all such feelings, so far as they go, arethe work of God's Spirit: whatever is good and right in our mindstowards God, that proceeds not from the spirit of the world, but fromthe Spirit of God. 

Where, then, is the great defect which yet continually makes ourpractical judgments quite wrong; which makes us, in fact, so oftencountenance and support evil, and discountenance and discourage good?First, it is owing to the spirit of carelessness. One of the mostemphatic terms by which a good man is expressed in the language of theGreek philosophers, is that of [Greek: opdouiaos], "one who is inearnest. " To be in earnest is, indeed, with, most of us, the same as tobe good; it is not that we love evil, but that we are indifferent bothto it and to good. Now, many of us are very seldom in earnest. By this Imean, that the highest part of our minds, and that which judges of thehighest things, is generally slumbering or but half awake. We may gothrough, a very busy day, and yet not be, in this true sense, in earnestat all; our best faculties may, as it were, be all the while sleeping orplaying. It is notorious how much this is so in the common intercourseof society in the world. Light anecdotes; playful remarks; discussions, it may be, about the affairs of the neighbourhood, or, in somecompanies, on questions of science or party politics; all these may beoften heard; but we may talk on all these brilliantly and well, and yetour best nature may not once be called to exert itself. So again, inmere routine business, it is the same: the body may toil; the pen moveswiftly; the thoughts act in the particular matter before themvigorously; and yet we our proper selves, beings understanding andchoosing between good and evil, have never bestirred ourselves at all. It has been but a skirmishing at the outposts; not a sword had beendrawn in the main battle. Take younger persons, and the same thing isthe case even more palpably. Here there is less of business in thecommon sense of the term; the mind is almost always unbraced andresting. We pass through the good and evil of our daily life, and ourproper self scarcely ever is aroused to notice either the one orthe other. 

But the worst of it is, that this carelessness is not altogetheraccidental: it is a carelessness which we do not wish to break. So longas it lasts, we manage to get the activity and interest of life, withouta sense of its responsibility. We like exceedingly to lay the reins, asit were, upon the neck of our inclinations, to go where they take us, and to ask no questions whether we are in the right road or no. Inclination is never slumbering: this gives us excitement enough to saveus from weariness, without the effort of awakening our conscience too. Therefore society, expressing in its rules the feelings of itsindividual members, prescribes exactly such a style of conversation asmay keep in exercise all other parts of our nature except that one whichshould be sovereign of all, and whose exercise is employed onthings eternal. 

Not being, then, properly in earnest, --that is, our conscience and ourchoice of moral good and evil being in a state of repose, --our languageis happily contrived so as that it shall contain nothing to startle oursleeping conscience, if her ears catch any of its sounds. We stillcommend good and dispraise evil, both in the general and in theparticular. But as good and evil are mixed in every man, and in variousproportions, he who commends, the little good of a bad man, sayingnothing of his evil, --or he who condemns the little evil of a good man, saying nothing of his good, --leads us evidently to a false practicalconclusion; he leads us to like the bad man and to dislike the good. Again, the lesser good becomes an evil if it keeps out a greater good;and, in the same way, the lesser evil becomes a good. If we have nothought of comparing good things together, if our sovereign nature beasleep, then we shall most estimate the good to which we are mostinclined; and where we find this we shall praise it, not observing thatit is taking up the place of a greater good which the case requires, and, therefore, that it is in fact an evil. So that our moral judgmentsmay lead practically to great evil: we may join with bad men and despisegood; we may approve of qualities which, are, in fact, ruining a man;and despise others which, in the particular case, are virtues; withoutever in plain words condemning virtue or approving vice. 

But, farther, this habit of never being in earnest greatly lowers thestrength of our feelings even towards the good which we praise andtowards the evil which we condemn. It was an admirable definition ofthat which excites laughter, that it was that which is out of rule, thatwhich is amiss, that which is unsightly, (these three ideas, and othersimilar ones, are alike contained in the single Greek word [Greek:aischron], ) provided that it was unaccompanied by pain. This definitionaccounts for the otherwise extraordinary fact, that there is somethingin moral evil which, in some instances, affects the mind ludicrously. That is to say, if moral evil affects us with no pain; if we see in itnothing, so to speak, but its irregularity, its strange contrast withwhat is beautiful, its jarring with the harmony of the system around us;then it does acquire that character which is well defined as beingridiculous. Thus it is notorious that trifling follies, and even grossvices, are often so represented in works of fiction as to beexceedingly ludicrous. It is enough, as an instance of what I mean, toname the vice of drunkenness. Get rid for the moment of the notions ofvice or sin which, accompany it, and which give moral pain; get rid alsoof those points in it which awaken physical disgust; retain merely thenotion of the incoherent language, and the strange capricious gait ofintoxication; and we have then an image merely ridiculous, as much, soas the rambling talk and absurd gestures of the old buffoons. 

Here, then, we have the secret of vice becoming laughable; and of thingswhich are really wicked, disgusting, hateful, being expressed by namespurely ludicrous. Where no great physical pain or distress is occasionedby what is evil, our sense of its ludicrousness will be exactly inproportion to the faintness of our sense of moral evil; or, in otherwords, to our want of being in earnest. The evil that does not seriouslypain or inconvenience man, is very apt to be regarded with feelingsapproaching to laughter, if we have no sense of pain at the notion ofits being an offence against God. 

Thus, then, we have seen how, from the want of being in earnest, fromthe habitual slumber of conscience, or that sovereign part of us whichlooks upon our whole state with reference to its highest interests, andpasses judgment upon all our actions, --how, from the practical absenceof these, we may get to follow evil persons, and be indifferent to thegood; to admire qualities which, from usurping the place of better ones, are actually ruinous; and, finally, to regard all common evil not somuch with deep abhorrence, as with a disposition to laugh at it. Andthus the practical judgment and influence of the society around us maybe fatally evil; while the society all the time shall contain, even inits very perversion, various elements of truth and of good. 

I have kept to general language, to general views, perhaps too much; butall the time my mind has been fixed on the particular application ofthis, which lies scarcely beneath the surface, but which I cannot wellbear more fully to unveil. But whoever has attended to what I have beensaying, will be able, I should trust, to make the application, forhimself, to those points in our society which most need correction. Hewill be able to understand how it is that the influence of the place isnot better, while it undoubtedly contains so much of good; how thepublic opinion of a Christian school may yet be, in many respects, veryunchristian. If he has attended at all to what I have said about our sorarely being in earnest, he will see something of the mischief of someof those publications, of those books, of that tone of conversation, which, I suppose, are here, as elsewhere, in fashion. Utterly impossibleis it to lay down a rule for others in such matters: to say this book istoo light, or this is an excess of light reading, or this laugh was toounrestrained, or that tone of trifling too perpetual. But, in thesethings, we should all judge ourselves; and remember that you are solittle under outward restraint, your choice of reading is so free, yourintercourse with one another so wholly uncontrolled, that, enjoying thusthe full liberty of more advanced years, you incur also theirresponsibility. There is, doubtless, an excess of light reading, both inkind and in quantity; there is such a thing as a tone of conversationand manner too entirely, and too frequently, trifling. And you must bequite aware that we are placed here for something else than to indulgesuch a temper as this. Cheerfulness and thoughtlessness have nonecessary connexion; the lightest spirits, which are indeed one of thegreatest of earthly blessings, often play around the most earnestthought and the tenderest affection, and with far more grace than whenthey are united with the shallowness and hardness of him who is, in thesight of God, a fool. It were a strange notion, that we could never bemerry without intoxication, yet not stranger than to think that mirth isthe companion only of folly or of sin. But, setting God in Christ beforeus, then the conscience is awake; then we are in earnest; then wemeasure things rightly; then we feel them strongly; then we love thosethat are good, and shun those that are evil; then we learn that sin isno matter of laughter, that it ill deserves to be clothed under aludicrous name; for that thing which we laugh at, that which we somiscall, is indeed the cause of infinite evil; for that Christ died; forthat there are some who die that death which lasts for ever. 

LECTURE XVIII. 

 * * * * *

GENESIS xxvii. 38. 

_And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father?Bless me, even me also, O my father_. 

MATTHEW xv. 27. 

_And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fallfrom their master's table_. 

Of these two passages, the first, as we must all remember, is taken fromthe first lesson of this morning's service; the second is from themorning's gospel. Both speak the same language, and point out, I think, that particular view of the story of Jacob obtaining the blessing whichis most capable of being turned to account; for, as to the conduct ofJacob and his mother, it is manifestly no more capable of affording usbenefit, as a matter of example, than the conduct, in some respectssimilar, of the unjust steward in our Lord's parable. The example, indeed, is of the same kind as that. If the steward was so anxious abouthis future worldly welfare, and Jacob about the worldly welfare of hisdescendants, that they did not scruple to obtain their ends, the one bydishonesty, the other by falsehood, much more should we be anxious aboutthe true welfare of ourselves and those belonging to us, which no suchunworthy means can be required to gain. But the point of the story towhich the text refers, and which is illustrated also by the words ofthe Syrophoenician woman, is one which very directly concerns us all, being no other than this, --what should be the effect upon our own mindsof witnessing others possessed of greater advantages than ourselves, whether obtained by the immediate gift of God, through the course of hisordinary providence, or acquired directly by some unjust or unlawful actof those who are in possession of them?

Now, it is evident that, as equality is not the rule either of nature orof human society, there must be many in every congregation who are sofar in the condition of Esau and of the Syrophoenician woman, as to beinferior to others around them in some one or more advantages. Theinferiority may consist in what are called worldly advantages, or innatural advantages, or in spiritual advantages, or in some or all ofthese united. And it is not to be doubted that the sense of thisinferiority is a hard trial, both as respects our feelings towards Godand towards men. It is a hard trial; but yet, no trial overtakes us butsuch as is common to man: and here, as in all other cases, God will, with the trial, also make a way for us to escape, that we may be ableto bear it. 

Let us consider, then, some of the most common cases in which thisinferiority exists amongst us. With regard to worldly advantages, thepeculiar nature of this congregation makes it less necessary than itgenerally would be, to dwell upon inequality in these: in fact, speakinggenerally, we are a very unusual example of equality in these respects;the advantages of station and fortune are enjoyed not, literally, in anequal degree by all of us, but equally as compared with, the lot of thegreat mass of society; we all enjoy the necessaries, and most of thecomforts of life. What differences there are would, probably, appear ininstances seemingly trifling, if, indeed, any thing were reallytrifling by which the temper and feelings, and through them theprinciples, of any amongst us may be affected for good or for evil. Itmay possibly happen that, in the indulgences, or means of indulgence, given to you by your friends at home, there may be sometimes, such adifference as to excite discontent or jealousy. It may be, that some areapt to exult over others, by talking of the pleasures, or the liberty, which they enjoy; and which the friends of others, either from necessityor from a sense of duty, are obliged to withhold. If this be ever feltby any of you as a trial; if it gall your pride, as well as restrictyour enjoyments; then remember, that here, even in this seemingly littlething, the inferiority of which you complain may be either increasedten-fold, or changed into a blessed superiority. Increased ten-fold, even as from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which hehath, if by discontent, and evil passions towards God and man, you makeyourselves a hundred times more inferior spiritually than you were inoutward circumstances; but changed into a blessed superiority, if it beborne with meekness, and patience, and thankfulness, even as it was saidof the Gentile centurion, that there had not been found faith equal tohis, no, not in Israel. 

But turning from worldly advantages to those which are called natural, and the inequality here is at once as great as elsewhere. In allfaculties of body and mind; in the vigour of the senses, of the limbs, of the general constitution; in the greater or less liability to diseasegenerally, or to any particular form of it; or, again, in powers ofmind, in quickness, in memory, in imagination, in judgment; thedifferences between different persons in this congregation must beexceedingly wide. But, with regard to bodily powers, the trial is littlefelt, till the inferiority is shown in actual suffering from pain orfrom disease. So long as we are in health, our enjoyments are so many, and we so easily accommodate our habits to our powers, that a mereinferiority of strength, whether it be of limb or of constitution, isnot apt to make us dissatisfied. But if it comes to actual illness or topain, if we are deprived of the common enjoyments and occupations of ourage, then perhaps the trial begins to be severe; and when we look atothers who have taken the same liberties with their health as we havedone, and see them notwithstanding perfectly well and strong, while weare disabled or suffering, we may think that God has dealt hardly withus, and may be inclined to ask with Esau, "Hast thou but one blessing, my Father? bless me, even me also, O my Father!" Now this language, according to the sense in which we use it, is either blameable orinnocent. If we mean to say, "Hast thou health to give to others onlyand not to me? give me this blessing also, as thou hast given it to mybrethren:" then it has in it somewhat of discontent and murmuring; itimplies a claim to which God never listens. But if we mean, "Hast thouonly one kind of blessing, my father? If thou hast blest others in oneway, I murmur not nor complain: but out of thine infinite store, give mealso such a blessing as may be convenient for me;" then God hears theprayer, then he gives the blessing, and gives it so richly, and makes itbear so evidently the mark of his love, that they who were last arebecome first; if others have health, and we have sickness, yet thespirit of patience and cheerful submission which God gives with it is sogreat a blessing, and makes us so certainly happy, that the strongestand healthiest of our friends have often far more reason to wish tochange places with us, than we with them. 

Let us now take inequality in powers of mind. And here, undoubtedly, thedifference is apt to be a trial. Not that, probably, it excitesdiscontent or murmuring against God; nor jealousy against those whosefaculties are better than our own: the trial is of another kind; we aretempted to make our inferiority an excuse for neglect; because we cannotdo so much nor so easily as others, we do far less than we might do. Butthe parable shows us plainly, that if one talent only has been given us, while others have ten, yet that the one, no less than the ten, must bemade to yield its increase. Here is the feeling expressed so earnestlyby the woman entreating Christ to heal her daughter. "The dogs eat ofthe crumbs which fall from their master's table. " Small as may be theportion of power given us, when compared with the plenty vouchsafed toothers, still it is capable of nourishing us if we make use of it; stillit shows that we too have our blessing. And if using it withthankfulness, if doing our very best with it, knowing that "a man isaccepted according to what he hath, and not according to what he hathnot, " we labour humbly and diligently; then, not only does the talentitself become increased, so that our Lord, when he comes to reckon withus, may receive his own with usury: but a blessing of another kind isadded to our labours, again, as in the former case, making those whowere last to become first. For if there be one thing on earth which istruly admirable, it is to see God's wisdom blessing an inferiority ofnatural powers, when they have been honestly, humbly, and zealouslycultivated. From how many pains are they delivered, to which greatnatural talents are continually exposed; irritation, jealousy, a morbidand nervous activity, bearing fruits not of peace, but of gall! Withwhat blessings are they crowned, to which, the most powerful naturalunderstanding is a stranger! the love of truth gratified, without thefear that truth will demand the sacrifice of personal vanity; the lineof duty clearly discerned, because those mists of passion andselfishness which obscure it so often from the view of the keenestnatural perception, have been dispersed by the spirit of humility andlove; imperfect knowledge patiently endured, because whatever knowledgeis enjoyed is known to be God's gift, and what he gives, or what hewithholds, is alike welcome. This is the blessing of those who havinghad inferior natural powers, have so laboured to improve them accordingto God's will, that on all there has been grafted, as it were, somebetter power of grace, to yield a fruit most precious both for earthand heaven. 

But I spoke of an equality of spiritual advantages also, and this isperhaps the hardest trial of all. Oh, how great is this inequality intruth, when it seems to be so little! All of you, the children ofChristian parents; all members of the Christian Church; all partakinghere of the same worship, the same prayers, the same word of God, thesame sacrament; are you not all the Israel of God, and not, like Esau, or the Syrophoenician woman, strangers to the covenant of blessing? Yetyour real condition is, notwithstanding, very unequal. How unlike areyour friends at home; how, unlike, also, are your friends here! Arethere not some to whom their homes, both by direct precept and byexample, are a far greater help than to others? Are there not some, whose immediate companions here may encourage them in all good far morethan may be the case with, others? So, then, there may be some to whomthis great blessing has been denied, whilst others enjoy it. What then?Shall we say, that, because we have it not, we will refuse to go in toour Father's house; that we will not walk as our brother walks, unlesswe have his advantages? Then must we remain cast out; vessels fashionedto dishonour; rejected of God, and cursed. Nay rather let us put aChristian sense on Esau's prayer, and cry, "'Hast thou but one blessing, my Father? bless me, even me also, O my Father. ' If thou hast given toothers earthly helps, which thou hast denied to me, give me thyself andthy own Spirit the more! If father and mother forsake my most preciousinterest, do thou take me up. If my nearest friends will not walk withme in the house of God, be thou my friend, and abide with, me always, making my house as thine. Outward and earthly means thou givest ortakest away at thy pleasure; but give me help according to my need, thatI yet may not lose thee. "

How naturally are we interested at the thought of any one socircumstanced, and uttering such a prayer! How earnestly do we wish tohelp him, to show our respect and true love for a faith so tried and soenduring! And think we that God cares for it less than we do? or have wenot already the record of his love towards it, when Christ answered theSyrophoenician woman, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee evenas thou wilt?" He may not, indeed, see fit to give the very sameblessing which was in the first instance denied: we may still have fewerspiritual advantages than others, as far as human helps are concerned;fewer good and earnest friends; fewer examples of holiness around us;fewer to join with us in our prayers and in our struggles against evil. But though this particular blessing may be denied, --as Esau could notgain that blessing which had been given to Jacob, --yet there is ablessing for us also, which may prove, in the end, even better than ourbrother's. He who serves God steadily, amidst many disadvantages, enjoysthe blessing of a more confirmed and hardier faith; he has gone throughtrials, and been found conqueror; and for him that overcometh isreserved a more abundant measure of glory. 

But on the other side, we who, like Jacob, or Jacob's posterity, havethe blessing, --whether it be natural, worldly, or spiritual, --let usconsider what became of it when it was not improved. What was the sinof Esau, --speaking not of the individual, but of the less favouredpeople of Edom, --compared with the sin of Jacob? Nay, not of Edom only;but it shall be more tolerable for Sodom, in the day of judgment, thanfor the unbelieving cities of Israel. So it is, not only with theliteral, but with the Christian Israel; so it is, not only with theChurch as a whole compared with heathens, but with all those individualsamongst us, who enjoy in any larger measure than others any of God'sblessings. They are blessings; but they may be made fatal curses. Thisholds true with blessings of every kind: with station and wealth, withbodily health and vigour, with, great powers of mind, with large meansof spiritual improvement. To whom much is given, of him shall be much, required. It is required of us to enjoy our blessings by using them: sowill they be blessings indeed. So it is with money and influence, withhealth, with talents, with spiritual knowledge, and good friends andparents. There are first who shall be last; that is, those who begantheir course with advantages which set them before their brethren, ifthey do not exert themselves, will fall grievously behind them: for theblessing denied may be, in effect, a blessing given; and the blessinggiven, in like manner, becomes too often a blessing taken away. 

LECTURE XIX. 

 * * * * *

MATTHEW xxii. 32. 

_God is not the God of the dead, but of the living_. 

We hear these words as a part of our Lord's answer to the Sadducees;and, as their question was put in evident profaneness, and the answer toit is one which to our minds is quite obvious and natural, so we are aptto think that in this particular story there is less than usual thatparticularly concerns us. But it so happens, that our Lord, in answeringthe Sadducees, has brought in one of the most universal and most solemnof all truths, --which is indeed implied in many parts of the OldTestament, but which the Gospel has revealed to us in all itsfulness, --the truth contained in the words of the text, that "God is notthe God of the dead, but of the living. "

I would wish to unfold a little what is contained in these words, whichwe often hear even, perhaps, without quite understanding them; and manytimes oftener without fully entering into them. And we may take them, first, in their first part, where they say that "God is not the God ofthe dead. "

The word "dead, " we know, is constantly used in Scripture in a doublesense, as meaning those who are dead spiritually, as well as those whoare dead naturally. And, in either sense, the words are alikeapplicable: "God is not the God of the dead. "

God's not being the God of the dead signifies two things: that they whoare without him are dead, as well as that they who are dead are alsowithout him. So far as our knowledge goes respecting inferior animals, they appear to be examples of this truth. They appear to us to have noknowledge of God; and we are not told that they have any other life thanthe short one of which our senses inform us. I am well aware that ourignorance of their condition is so great that, we may not dare to sayanything of them positively; there may be a hundred things truerespecting them which we neither know nor imagine. I would only saythat, according to that most imperfect light in which we see them, thetwo points of which I have been speaking appear to meet in them: webelieve that they have no consciousness of God, and we believe that theywill die. And so far, therefore, they afford an example of theagreement, if I may so speak, between these two points; and wereintended, perhaps, to be to our view a continual image of it. But we hadfar better speak of ourselves. And here, too, it is the case that "Godis not the God of the dead. " If we are without him we are dead; and ifwe are dead we are without him: in other words, the two ideas of deathand absence from God are in fact synonymous. 

Thus, in the account given of the fall of man, the sentence of death andof being cast out of Eden go together; and if any one compares thedescription of the second Eden in the Revelation, and recollects howespecially it is there said, that God dwells in the midst of it, and isits light by day and night, he will see that the banishment from thefirst Eden means a banishment from the presence of God. And thus, in theday that Adam sinned, he died; for he was cast out of Eden immediately, however long he may have moved about afterwards upon the earth whereGod was not. And how very strong to the same point are the words ofHezekiah's prayer, "The grave cannot praise thee, Death cannot celebratethee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth;" wordswhich express completely the feeling that God is not the God of thedead. This, too, appears to be the sense generally of the expressionused in various parts of the Old Testament, "Thou shalt surely die. " Itis, no doubt, left purposely obscure; nor are we ever told, in so manywords, all that is meant by death; but, surely, it always implies aseparation from God, and the being--whatever the notion may extendto--the being dead to him. Thus, when David had committed his great sin, and had expressed his repentance for it, Nathan tells him, "The Lordalso hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die:" which means, mostexpressively, thou shalt not die to God. In one sense, David died, asall men die; nor was he, by any means, freed from the punishment of hissin: he was not, in that sense, forgiven; but he was allowed still toregard God as his God; and, therefore, his punishments were but fatherlychastisements from God's hand, designed for his profit, that he might bepartaker of God's holiness. And thus although Saul was sentenced to losehis kingdom, and although he was killed with his sons on Mount Gilboa, yet I do not think that we find the sentence passed upon him, "Thoushalt surely die;" and, therefore, we have no right to say that God hadceased to be his God, although be visited him with severe chastisements, and would not allow him to hand down to his sons the crown of Israel. Observe, also, the language of the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, wherethe expressions occur so often, "He shall surely live, " and "He shallsurely die. " We have no right to refer these to a mere extension, on theone hand, or a cutting short, on the other, of the term of earthlyexistence. The promise of living long in the land, or, as in Hezekiah'scase, of adding to his days fifteen years, is very different from thefull and unreserved blessing, "Thou shalt surely live. " And we know, undoubtedly, that both the good and the bad to whom Ezekiel spoke, diedalike the natural death of the body. But the peculiar force of thepromise, and of the threat, was, in the one case, Thou shalt belong toGod; in the other, Thou shalt cease to belong to him; although the veilwas not yet drawn up which concealed the full import of those terms, "belonging to God, " and "ceasing to belong to him:" nay, can we ventureto affirm that it is fully drawn aside even now?

I have dwelt on this at some length, because it really seems to placethe common state of the minds of too many amongst us in a light which isexceedingly awful; for if it be true, as I think the Scripture implies, that to be dead, and to be without God, are precisely the same thing, then can it be denied, that the symptoms of death are strongly markedupon many of us? Are there not many who never think of God, or careabout his service? Are there not many who live, to all appearance, asunconscious of his existence as we fancy the inferior animals to be? Andis it not quite clear, that to such persons, God cannot be said to betheir God? He may be the God of heaven and earth, the God of theuniverse, the God of Christ's church; but he is not their God, for theyfeel to have nothing at all to do with him; and, therefore, as he is nottheir God, they are, and must be, according to the Scripture, reckonedamong the dead. 

But God is the God "of the living. " That is, as before, all who arealive, live unto him; all who live unto him, are alive. "God said, I amthe God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;" and, therefore, says our Lord, "Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, are not andcannot be dead. " They cannot be dead, because God owns them: he is notashamed to be called their God; therefore, they are not cast out fromhim; therefore, by necessity, they live. Wonderful, indeed, is the truthhere implied, in exact agreement, as we have seen, with the generallanguage of Scripture; that, as she who but touched the hem of Christ'sgarment was, in a moment, relieved from her infirmity, so great was thevirtue which went out from him; so they who are not cast out from God, but have any thing whatever to do with him, feel the virtue of hisgracious presence penetrating their whole nature; because he lives, theymust live also. 

Behold, then, life and death set before us; not remote, (if a few yearsbe, indeed, to be called remote, ) but even now present before us; evennow suffered or enjoyed. Even now, we are alive unto God, or dead untoGod; and, as we are either the one or the other, so we are, in thehighest possible sense of the terms, alive or dead. In the highestpossible sense of the terms; but who can tell what that highest possiblesense of the terms is? So much has, indeed, been revealed to us, that weknow now that death means a conscious and perpetual death, as life meansa conscious and perpetual life. But greatly, indeed, do we deceiveourselves, if we fancy that, by having thus much told us, we have alsorisen to the infinite heights, or descended to the infinite depths, contained in those little words, life and death. They are far higher, and far deeper, than ever thought or fancy of man has reached to. But, even on the first edge of either, at the visible beginnings of thatinfinite ascent or descent, there is surely something which may give usa foretaste of what is beyond. Even to us in this moral state, even toyou advanced but so short a way on your very earthly journey, life anddeath have a meaning: to be dead unto God, or to be alive to him, arethings perceptibly different. 

For, let me ask of those who think least of God, who are most separatefrom him, and most without him, whether there is not now actually, perceptibly, in their state, something of the coldness, the loneliness, the fearfulness of death? I do not ask them whether they are madeunhappy by the fear of God's anger; of course they are not: for they whofear God are not dead to him, nor he to them. The thought of him givesthem no disquiet at all; this is the very point we start from. But Iwould ask them whether they know what it is to feel God's blessing. Forinstance: we all of us have our troubles of some sort or other, ourdisappointments, if not our sorrows. In these troubles, in thesedisappointments, --I care not how small they may be, --have they knownwhat it is to feel that God's hand is over them; that these littleannoyances are but his fatherly correction; that he is all the timeloving us, and supporting us? In seasons of joy, such, as they tastevery often, have they known what it is to feel that they are tasting thekindness of their heavenly Father, that their good things come from hishand, and are but an infinitely slight foretaste of his love? Sickness, danger, --I know that they come to many of us but rarely; but if we haveknown them, or at least sickness, even in its lighter form, if not inits graver, --have we felt what it is to know that we are in our Father'shands, that he is with us, and will be with us to the end; that nothingcan hurt those whom he loves? Surely, then, if we have never tastedanything of this: if in trouble, or in joy, or in sickness, we are leftwholly to ourselves, to bear as we can, and enjoy as we can; if there isno voice that ever speaks out of the heights and the depths around us, to give any answer to our own; if we are thus left to ourselves in thisvast world, --there is in this a coldness and a loneliness; and wheneverwe come to be, of necessity, driven to be with our own hearts alone, thecoldness and the loneliness must be felt. But consider that the thingswhich, we see around us cannot remain with us, nor we with them. Thecoldness and loneliness of the world, without God, must be felt more andmore as life wears on: in every change of our own state, in everyseparation from or loss of a friend, in every more sensible weakness ofour own bodies, in every additional experience of the uncertainty of ourown counsels, --the deathlike feeling will come upon us more and morestrongly: we shall gain more of that fearful knowledge which tells usthat "God is not the God of the dead. "

And so, also, the blessed knowledge that he is the God "of the living"grows upon those who are truly alive. Surely he "is not far from everyone of us. " No occasion of life fails to remind those who live unto him, that he is their God, and that they are his children. On light occasionsor on grave ones, in sorrow and in joy, still the warmth of his love isspread, as it were, all through the atmosphere of their lives: they forever feel his blessing. And if it fills them with joy unspeakable evennow, when they so often feel how little they deserve it; if they delightstill in being with God, and in living to him, let them be sure thatthey have in themselves the unerring witness of life eternal: God is theGod of the living, and all who are with him must live. 

Hard it is, I well know, to bring this home, in any degree, to the mindsof those who are dead: for it is of the very nature of the dead thatthey can hear no words of life. But it has happened that, even whilstwriting what I have just been uttering to you, the news reached me thatone, who two months ago was one of your number, who this very half-yearhas shared in all the business and amusements of this place, is passedalready into that state where the meanings of the terms life and deathare become fully revealed. He knows what it is to live unto God, andwhat it is to die to him. Those things which are to us unfathomablemysteries, are to him all plain: and yet but two months ago he mighthave thought himself as far from attaining this knowledge as any of uscan do. Wherefore it is clear, that these things, life and death, mayhurry their lesson upon us sooner than we deem of, sooner than we areprepared to receive it. And that were indeed awful, if, being dead toGod, and yet little feeling it, because of the enjoyments of our worldlylife, those enjoyments were on a sudden to be struck away from us, andwe should find then that to be dead to God was death, indeed, a deathfrom which there is no waking, and in which there is no sleepingfor ever. 

LECTURE XX. 

 * * * * *

EZEKIEL xiii. 22. 

_With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have notmade sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should notreturn from his wicked way, by promising him life_. 

The verses which immediately precede this, require explanation, butperhaps our knowledge is hardly sufficient to enable us to give itfully. There are allusions to customs, --to fashions rather, --commonamongst the Israelites at the time, which we can now scarcely do morethan guess at; but we may observe, that there was a general practice, which even God's own prophets were directed often to comply with, ofenforcing what was said in word by some corresponding outward action, inwhich the speaker made himself, as it were, a living image of the ideawhich he meant to convey. Thus, when Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, wasassuring Ahab, that he should drive the Syrians before him, he madehimself horns of iron, and said, "With these shalt thou push theSyrians, until thou have consumed them. " In the same way, it is imaginedthat the false prophetesses spoken of in the text were in the habit ofwearing pillows, or cushions, fastened to their arms, and directed thosewho came to consult them to do the same, as a sign of rest and peace;that they who trusted to them had nothing to fear, but might lie downand enjoy themselves at their feasts, or in sleep, with entire security. Or, again, if we connect what is said of the pillows with whatimmediately follows about the kerchiefs put upon the head, we maysuppose that both are but parts of a fantastic dress, such as was oftenworn by pretended prophets and fortune-tellers, and which they may havemade those wear, also, who came before them. We know that the coveringon the head was, for instance, a part of the ceremonial law of the Romanaugurs, when they began their divinations. But, however this be, theexact understanding of these particular points is not necessary to ourderiving the lesson of the passage in general. I know that there issomething naturally painful to an active mind in being obliged tocontent itself with an indistinct notion, or still more, with no notionat all, of the meaning of any words presented to it. But, whilst weshould highly value this sensitiveness, as, indeed, few qualities aremore essential in the pursuit of truth, yet we must be careful not tolet our disappointment carry us too far, so as to pass over a wholepassage, or portion, of Scripture, as if in despair, because we cannotunderstand every part of it. Much of the supposed obscurity of theprophets arises from this cause--that we find in them particularexpressions and allusions, which, whether from a, fault in thetranslation, or from our imperfect knowledge of the times of which theprophets speak, and of the language in which they wrote, are certainlyquite unintelligible. But these are only a few expressions, occurringhere and there; and it is a great evil to fancy that their writings, ingeneral, are not to be understood, because of the difficulty ofparticular passages in them. Thus, with the very chapter of which we arenow speaking, the expression to which I have alluded can only beuncertainly interpreted, yet the lesson of the chapter, as a whole, isperfectly clear, notwithstanding. The dress, or fashions, or particularrites, of the false prophets of Jerusalem and their votaries, may offerno distinct image to our minds; but the evil of their doings, how theydeceived others, and were themselves deceived; the points, that is, which alone concern us practically, these are set before us plainly. "With their lies they made the heart of the righteous sad, whom God hadnot made sad; and they strengthened the hands of the wicked, that heshould not return from his wicked way, by promising him life. " Where theway of life was broad, they strove to make it narrow; and where it wasnarrow, they strove to make it broad: by their solemn and superstitiouslies, they frightened and perplexed the good, while, by their lives ofungodliness, they emboldened and encouraged the wicked. 

It may not, at first sight, seem necessary that these two things shouldgo together; there might be, it seems, either the fault of making theheart of the righteous sad, without that of strengthening the hands ofthe wicked: or there might be the strengthening of the hands of thewicked, without making sad the heart of the righteous. And so itsometimes has been: there has been a wickedness which has not tried tokeep up superstition: there has been a superstition, the supporters ofwhich have not wilfully encouraged wickedness. Yet, although this hasbeen so, with respect to the intention of the parties concerned, yet intheir own nature, the tendency of either evil to produce the other issure and universal. We cannot exist without some influences of fear andrestraint, on the one hand, and without some indulgence of freedom, onthe other. God has provided for both these wants, so to speak, of ournature; he has told us whom we should fear, and where we should berestrained, and where, also, we may be safely in freedom: there is thefruit forbidden, and the fruit which we may eat freely. But if therestraint and the liberty be either of them put in the wrong place, thedouble evil is sure to follow. Restrained in his lawful liberty, debarred from the good and wholesome fruit of the garden, man breaks outinto a liberty which is unlawful; he eats of the forbidden fruit, whosetaste is death; or, surfeited with an unholy freedom, and let to runwild in a space far too vast for his strength to compass, he turnscravingly for that support to his weariness which a narrowed range wouldafford him; and he limits himself on that very quarter in which alone hemight expatiate freely. Superstition, in fact, is the rest ofwickedness, and wickedness is the breaking loose of superstition. 

But, however true this may be, are we concerned in it? First of all, when we find an evil dwelt upon often in the Prophets, and find it dweltupon again by our Lord and his Apostles with no less earnestness, thereis, at least, a strong presumption, that an evil of this sort is nothinglocal or passing, but that it is fixed in man's nature, and is apt togrow up in all times, and in all countries. Now, the double evil spokenof in the text, occurs again in the gospel; there we find men spoken of, who, in like manner, insisted upon what was trifling, and were carelessof what was important; and in the epistles, we find, again, the samecharacters holding up as righteous others than those who workedrighteousness: men, who spoke lies in hypocrisy, having their conscienceseared with a hot iron. We may presume, therefore, that this evil is ofan enduring character; but if we look back to the history of theChristian Church, or look around us, the presumption becomes the sadconviction of experience. 

Nor is the evil merely one which exists in the country at large; a thingwhich might be fully dwelt upon any where but here. On the contrary, Ihardly know of an age more exposed to it than youth. There exist inyouth, in a very high degree, those opposite feelings of our nature, which I have before spoken of; a tendency to respect, to follow, to beled, on the one hand; and on the other, a lively desire for independenceand freedom. These feelings often exist in the greatest strength in thesame individual; and when they are not each turned in their properdirection, ruin is the consequence. Nothing is more common than to seegreat narrowness of mind, great prejudices, and great disorderliness ofconduct, united in the same person. Nothing is more common than to seethe same mind utterly prostrated before some idol of its own, andsupporting that idol with the most furious zeal, and at the same timeutterly rebellious to Christ, and rejecting with scorn the enlightening, the purifying, and the loving influences of Christ's Spirit. 

The idols of various minds are infinitely various, some seducing theloftiest natures and some the vilest. But of this we may be sure, thatevery one of us has a tendency to some one idol or other, if not tomany; and our business is especially each to watch, ourselves, lest webe enslaved to our peculiar idol. I will now, however, speak of thosewhich, tempt the highest minds; which, by their show of sacredness andexcellence, make us fancy, that while following them we are followingChrist. And let none be surprised, if I rank among idols many things, which, in themselves and in their proper use and order, are indeed to beloved and reverenced. It was most right to respect the Apostle Peter, and listen to his word; but that great Apostle would have been ruin toCornelius, and not salvation, if he had suffered him, without reproof, to fall down before him, and render to him the service due to Christalone. How many good and pious feelings must have been awakened from ageto age in many minds, at the sight of the brazen serpent on the pole, the memorial of their fathers' deliverance in the wilderness! But whenthis awakening, this solemn memorial was corrupted into an idol, whenmen bowed down before it in superstition, it was the part of true pietyto do as Hezekiah did, to dash it, notwithstanding all its solemnassociations, into a thousand pieces. 

Thus things good, things noble, things sacred, may all become idols. Tosome minds truth is an idol, to others justice, to others charity orbenevolence; and others are beguiled by objects of a different sort ofsacredness: some have made Christ's mother their idol; some, Christ'sservants; some, again, Christ's sacraments, and Christ's own body, theChurch. If these may all be idols, where can we find a name so holy, asthat we may surrender up our whole souls to it; before which obedience, reverence, without measure, intense humility, most unreserved adoration, may all be duly rendered. One name there is, and one only; one alone inheaven and in earth; not truth, not justice, not benevolence, notChrist's mother, not his holiest servants, not his blessed sacraments, not his very mystical body, but Himself only, who died for us and roseagain, Jesus Christ, both God and Man. 

He is truth, and he is righteousness, and he is love; he gives his graceto his sacraments, and his manifold gifts to his Church; whoever hathhim hath all things; but if we do not take heed, whenever we turn ourmind to any other object, we shall make it an idol and lose him. Takehim in all his fulness, not as God merely, not as man merely; not in hislife on earth only, not in his death only, not in his exaltation atGod's right hand only; but in all his fulness, the Christ of God, Godand Man, our Prophet, our Priest, our King and Lord, redeeming us by hisblood, sanctifying us by his Spirit; and then worship him and love himwith all the heart, and with, all the soul, and with all the strength;and we shall see how all evil will be barred, and all good will abound. No man who worships Christ alone, can be a fanatic, nor yet can be amore philosopher; he cannot be bigoted, nor yet can he be indifferent;he cannot be so the slave of what be calls amiable feelings as to casttruth and justice behind him; nor yet can he so pursue truth and justiceas to lose sight of humbler and softer feelings, self-abasement, reverence, devotion. There is no evil tendency in the nature of any oneof us, which has not its cure in the true worship of Christ our Saviour. Let us look into our hearts, and consider their besetting faults. Are weindolent, or are we active; are we enthusiastic, or are we cold; zealousor indifferent, devout or reasonable; whatever the inclination, or biasof our nature be, if we follow its kindred idol, it will be magnifiedand grow on to our ruin; if we worship Christ, it will be pruned andchastened, and made to grow up with opposite tendencies, all aliketempered, none destroyed; none overgrowing the garden, but all fillingit with their several fruits; so that it shall be, indeed, the garden ofthe Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord shall dwell in the midst of it. 

And who shall dare to make sad the heart of him who is thus drinkingdaily of the well-spring of righteousness, by telling him that he is notyet saved, nor can be, unless he will come and bow down before his idol?And if, rather than do so, he break the idol in pieces, who shall dareto call him profane, or cold in love to his Lord, when it was in hisvery jealousy for his Lord, and in his full purpose to worship himalone, that he threw down all that exalted itself above its dueproportion against him? And if a man be not so worshipping Christ only, who shall dare to encourage him in his evil way, by magnifying thesacredness of his idol, and ascribing to it that healing virtue whichbelongs to Christ alone?

What has been here said might bear to be followed up at far greaterlength than the present occasion will admit of. But the main point isone, I think, of no small importance, that all fanaticism andsuperstition on the one hand, and all unbelief and coldness of heart onthe other, arise from what is in fact idolatry, --the putting some otherobject, whether it be called a religious or moral one, --and an objectoften in itself very excellent, --in the place of Christ himself, as setforth to us fully in the Scriptures. And as no idol can stand inChrist's place, or in any way save us, so whoever worships Christ trulyis preserved from all idols and has life eternal. And if any one demandof him further, that he should worship his idol, and tells him that heis not safe if he does not; his answer will be rather that he willperish if he does; that he is safe, fully safe, and only safe, so longas he clings to Christ alone; and that to make anything else necessaryto his safety, is not only to minister to superstition, but toungodliness also; not only to lay on us a yoke which neither our fathersnor we were able to bear; but, by the very act of laying thisunchristian yoke upon us, to tear from us the easy yoke and light burdenof Christ himself, our Lord and our life. 

LECTURE XXI. 

 * * * * *

ADVENT SUNDAY. 

 * * * * *

HEBREWS in. 16. 

_For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that cameout of Egypt by Moses_. 

I take this verse as my text, rather than those which immediately gobefore or follow it, because it affords one of the most seriousinstances of mistranslation that are to be met with in the whole NewTestament. For the true translation of the words is this: "For who werethey who, when they had heard, did provoke? nay, were they not all whocame out of Egypt through Moses?" And then it goes on--"And with whomwas he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whosecarcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they shouldnot enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?" I call this aserious mistranslation, because it lessens the force of the writer'scomparison. So far from meaning to say that "some, but not all didprovoke, " he lays a stress on the universality of the evil: it was notonly a few, but the whole people who came out of Egypt, with only thetwo individual exceptions of Caleb and Joshua. All the rest who weregrown up when they came out of Egypt did provoke God; and the carcasesof that whole generation, fell in the wilderness. 

Had the lesson from the Hebrews been actually chosen for the service ofthis day, it could hardly have suited it better. For this day is theNew-year's day of the Christian year; and it is probably for this reasonthat the service of the first day of the common year is confinedentirely to the commemoration of our Lord's circumcision, and takes nonotice of the beginning of a new year. It is manifest that it could notdo so without confusion: for the first of January is not the beginningof the Christian year, but Advent Sunday; the last Sunday of theChristian year is not Christmas-day, as it would be this year if wereckoned by the common divisions of time; but it is the last Sundayafter Trinity. Now, then, we are at the beginning of our year; and wellit is that, as our trial is now become shorter by another year, asanother division of our lives has passed away, we should fix our eyes onthat which makes every year so valuable, --the Judgment, for which itought to be a preparation. In fact, if we observe, we shall see thatthese Sundays in Advent are much more regarded by the Church as thebeginning of a new year, than as a mere prelude to the celebration ofthe festival of Christmas. That is, Christmas-day is regarded, so tospeak, in a two-fold light, as representing both the comings of ourLord, his first coming in the flesh, and his second coming to judgment. When the day actually arrives, it commemorates our Lord's first coming:and this is the beginning of the Christian year, historically regarded, that is, so far as it is a commemoration of the several events of ourLord's life on earth. But before it comes, it is regarded ascommemorating our Lord's second coming: and wisely, for his first comingrequires now no previous preparation for it; we cannot well putourselves into the position of those who lived before Christ appeared. But our whole life is, or ought to be, a preparation for his secondcoming; and it is this state, of which the season of Advent in theChurch services is intended to be the representation. 

There is something striking in the season of the natural year at whichwe thus celebrate the beginning of another Christian year. It is a truetype of our condition, of the insensible manner in which all the changesof our lives steal upon us, that nature, at this moment, gives nooutward signs of beginning: it is a period which does not manifest anystriking change in the state of things around us. The Christian Springbegins ere we have reached the half of the natural winter. Nature is notbursting into life, but rather preparing itself for a long period ofdeath. And this is a type of an universal truth, that the signs andwarnings which we must look to, must come from within us, not fromwithout: that neither sky nor earth, will arouse us from our deadlyslumber, unless we are ourselves aroused already, and more disposed tomake warnings for ourselves than to find them. 

If this be true of nature, it is true also of all the efforts of man. Asnature will give no sign, so man cannot. Let the Church do all that shemay; let her keep her solemn anniversaries, and choose out for herservices all such passages of Scripture as may be most fitted to impressthe lesson which she would teach; still we know that these are alikepowerless and unheeded; that unless there be in our own minds somethingbeforehand disposed to profit by them, they are but the words ofunavailing affection, vainly spoken to the ears of the dead. 

Oh that we would remember this, all of us; that there is no voice innature, no voice in man, that can really awaken the sleeping soul. Thatis the work of a far mightier power, to be sought for with most earnestprayers for ourselves and for each other: that the Holy Spirit of Godwould speak, and would dispose our hearts to hear; that so beingawakened from death and our ears being truly opened, all things outwardmay now join in language which we can hear; and nature, and man, lifeand death, things present and things to come, may be but the manifoldvoices of the Spirit of God, all working for us together for good. Tillthis be so, we speak in vain; our words neither reach our own hearts, nor the hearts of our hearers; they are but recorded in God's book ofjudgment, to be brought forward hereafter for the condemnation ofus both. 

Yet we must still speak; for the Spirit of God, who alone works in useffectually, works also secretly; we know not when, nor how, nor where. But we know, that as the Father worketh hitherto, and the Son workethhitherto, so the Holy Spirit worketh hitherto, and is still workingdaily. We know that, every year, he creates in thousands of God's peoplethat work which alone shall abide for ever. We know that in the yearthat is just past he has done this; that in the year which is justbeginning he will do it. Have we not here, also, many in whom he haswrought this work? may we not hope, and surely believe, that there aremany in whom he is even now preparing to work it?

We know not who these are; still less do we know, what were theoccasions which the Holy Spirit so blessed as to work in them his workof life. But this we know, that we are bound to minister all theoccasions which we can; we must not spare our labour, although it is Godalone who gives the increase. We must speak of life and of death, ofChrist and of judgment, not forgetting that we speak often, and shallspeak, utterly in vain; yet knowing that it is by these very thoughts, though long unheeded, that God's Spirit does in his own good time awakenthe heart; he takes of the things of Christ and shows them to us; andthen, what was before like a book in a strange language--we saw thefigures, but they conveyed no meaning to our minds--becomes, on asudden, instinct with the language of God, which we hear and understandas readily as if it were our own tongue wherein we were born. 

Therefore, we speak and say, that another year has now dawned upon us;and we would remind you, and remember, ourselves, in what words thevarious Scriptures of this day's service point out its inestimablevalue. "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. " So says St. Paul in the epistle of this day; and how blessed are all those amongstus who can feel that this is truly said of them! Then, indeed, a newyear's day is a day of rejoicing; we are so much nearer that period whenall care, all anxiety, all painful labour will be for ever ended. Butthere is other language of a different sort, which, it may be, will suitus better. "I have nourished and brought up children, and they haverebelled against me. " "Their land is full of idols; they worship thework of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made;" whichmeans to us, the work of our own hearts, that which our own fancies anddesires have made. "Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, forfear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. " For in the verytemple of God, his Church, all manner of profane thoughts and words andworks are crowded together; the din of covetousness and worldliness isloud and constant, and will ill abide the day of his coming, who will, asecond time, cast out of his temple all that is unclean. And is therenot also in us that evil heart of unbelief and disobedience whichdeparts from the living God? are there not here those who are becomingdaily hardened through the deceitfulness of sin? How are they passingtheir time in the wilderness, and with what prospects when they come tothe end of it? God said, "I sware in my wrath, that they shall not enterinto my rest. " By the way that they came, by the same shall they return;they shall go back to that bondage from which they were once redeemed, and from which they will be redeemed again no more for ever. 

These are some of the passages of this day's service which speaks to usat the beginning of this new Christian year. Let me add to all thislanguage of warning, the language in which God, by his apostle Paul, answers every one of us, if we ask of him in sincerity of heart, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" He answers, "The night is far spent, theday is at hand: let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting anddrunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife andenvying: but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision forthe flesh, to fulfil the works thereof. " Now, I grant, that this day, ofwhich the apostle speaks, has never yet shone so brightly, as he hadhoped and imagined; clouds have, up to this hour, continuallyovershadowed it. I mean, that the lives of Christians have hindered themfrom being the light of the world. It has been a light pale and dim, andtherefore the works of darkness have continued to abound. But admitthis, and what follows? Is it, or can it be, anything else but a moreearnest desire not to be ourselves children of darkness, lest what wesee to have happened in part should happen altogether; namely, that theday should never shine on us at all? We see that God's promises havebeen in part forfeited; we see that Christ's kingdom has not been whatit was prophesied it should be. Is not this a solemn warning, that forus, too, individually, God's promises may be forfeited? that all we readin Scripture of light, and life, and glory, and happiness, should reallyprove to us words only, and no reality? that whereas the promise ofsalvation has been made to us, we should be in the end, not saved, butlost? If, indeed, God's kingdom were shining around us, in its fullbeauty; if every evil thing were driven out of his temple; if we sawnothing but holy lives and happy, the fruits of his Spirit, truth, andlove, and joy; then we might be less anxious for ourselves; our coursewould be far smoother; the very stream would carry us along to the endof our voyage without our labour: what evil thoughts would not bewithered, and die long ere they could ripen into action, if the very airwhich we breathed were of such, keen and heavenly purity! It is becauseall this is not so, that we have need of so much watchfulness; it isbecause the faults of every one of us make our brethren's task harder;because there is not one bad or careless person amongst us who is not ahindrance in his brother's path, and does not oblige him to exerthimself the more. Therefore, because the day is not bright, butoverclouded; because it is but too like the night, and too many use itas the night for all works of darkness; let us take the more heed thatwe do not ourselves so mistake it; let us watch each of us the lightwithin us, lest, indeed, we should wholly stumble; let us put on theLord Jesus Christ. You know how often I have dwelt on this; how often Ihave tried to show that Christ is all in all to us; that to put onChrist, is a truer and fuller expression, by far, than if we had beentold to put on truth, or holiness, or goodness. It includes all these, with something more, that nothing but itself can give--the sense ofsafety, and joy unspeakable, in feeling ourselves sheltered in ourSaviour's arms, and taken even into himself. Assuredly, if we put on theLord Jesus Christ, we shall not make provision for the flesh to fulfilthe lusts thereof; such a warning would then be wholly unnecessary. Or, if we do not like language thus figurative, let us put it, if we will, into the plainest words that shall express the same meaning; let us callit praying to Christ, thinking of him, hoping in him, earnestly lovinghim; these, at least, are words without a figure, which all can surelyunderstand. Let us be Christ's this year that is now beginning; be hisservants, be his disciples, be his redeemed in deed; let us live to him, and for him; setting him before us every day to do his will, and to livein his blessing. Then, indeed, if it be his pleasure that we shouldserve him throughout this year, even to its end, we may repeat, with adeeper feeling of their truth, the words of St. Paul; we may say, whennext Advent Sunday shall appear, that now is our salvation nearer thanwhen we became believers. 

LECTURE XXII. 

 * * * * *

CHRISTMAS DAY. 

 * * * * *

JOHN i. 10. 

_He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knewHim not_. 

When we use ourselves, or hear others use, the term "mystery, " asapplied to things belonging to the gospel, we should do well to considerwhat is meant by it. For our common notion of the word mystery is ofsomething dark; whereas Christ and his gospel are continually spoken ofas being, above all other things, light. Then come others, and say, "Light and darkness cannot go together: what you call the mysteries ofChristianity are no part of it, but the fond inventions of man:Christianity is all simple and clear:" and thus they strike away some ofthe very greatest truths which God has revealed to us. Thus they deal inparticular with the great truth declared in the text, that He who madethe world visited it in the likeness of man. Now, if this truth were amystery, in the common notion of that term; if it were a thing full ofdarkness, defying our minds to understand it, or to draw any good fromit; then, indeed, it would be of little consequence whether we receivedit or no. It is because it is a mystery in a very different sense, inthe sense in which the word is used commonly in the Scriptures; thatis, a thing which was a secret, but which God has been pleased toreveal, and to reveal for our benefit, that therefore the loss of itwould be the loss of a real blessing, a loss at once of lightand comfort. 

But we must go a little further, and explain from what this sadconfusion in the use of the term "mystery" has arisen. There are manythings relating to ourselves and to things around us, which by nature wecannot understand; and of God we can scarcely understand anything. Now, while the gospel has revealed much that we did not know before, it yethas not revealed everything: of God, in particular, it has given us muchmost precious knowledge, yet it has not removed all the veil. It hasfurnished us with a glass, indeed, to use the apostle's comparison; butthe glass, although, a great help, although reflecting a likeness ofwhat, without it, we could not see at all, is yet a dark and imperfectmanner of seeing, compared with, the seeing face to face. So, when thegospel tells us that He who made the world visited it in our nature, itdoes not indeed enable us yet fully to conceive what He is who made us, and then became as one of us; there is still left around the name of Godthat light inaccessible which is to our imperfections darkness; and sofar as we cannot understand or conceive rightly of God, so far it istrue that we cannot understand all that is conveyed in the expressionthat God was in the world dwelling among us. Yet it is still most truethat by the revelation thus made to us we have gained immensely. God, ashe is in himself, we cannot understand; but Jesus Christ we can. When weare told to love God, if we look to the life and death of Christ, we canunderstand and feel how truly he deserves our love; when we are told tobe perfect as God is perfect, we have the image of this perfection sotruly set before us in his Son Jesus, that it may be well said, "Whosohath seen Him hath seen the Father;" and why, then, should we ask withPhilip, that "He should show us the Father?"

What, then, the festival of Christmas presents to us, as distinct fromthat of Easter, is generally the revelation of God in the flesh. True itis, that we may make it, if we will, the same as Easter: that is, we maycelebrate it as the birth of our Saviour, of him who died and rose againfor us; but then we only celebrate our Lord's birth with reference tohis death and resurrection: that is, we make Christmas to be Easterunder another name. And so everything relating to our Lord may be madeto refer to his death and resurrection; for in them consists ourredemption, and for that reason Easter has ever been considered as thegreat festival of the Christian year. But yet apart from this, Christmashas something peculiarly its own: namely, as I said before, therevelation of God in the flesh, not only to make atonement for oursins, --which is the peculiar subject of the celebration of the season ofEaster, --but to give us notions of God at once distinct and lively; toenable us to have One in the invisible world, whom we could conceive ofas distinctly as of a mere man, yet whom we might love with all ourhearts, and trust with all our hearts, and yet be guilty of no idolatry. 

It is not, then, only as the beginning of an earthly life of little morethan thirty years, that we may celebrate the day of our Lord's birth inthe flesh. His own words express what this day has brought to us:"Henceforth shall ye see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascendingand descending upon the Son of man. " The words here, like so many of ourLord's, are expressed in a parable; but their meaning is not the lessclear. They allude evidently to Jacob's vision, to the ladder reachingfrom earth to heaven, on which the angels were ascending and descendingcontinually. But this vision is itself a parable; showing, under thefigure of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, and the angels goingup and down on it, a free communication, as it were, between God andman, heaven brought nearer to earth, and heavenly things made morefamiliar. Now, this is done, in a manner, by every revelation from God;most of all, by the revelation of his Son. Nor is it only by his Spiritthat Christ communicates with us even now; though, he is ascended againinto heaven, yet the benefits of his having become man, over and abovethose of his dying and rising again for us, have not yet passed away. Itis still the man Christ Jesus who brings heaven near to earth, and earthnear to heaven. 

It has been well said by Augustine, that babes in Christ should so thinkof the Son of man as not to lose sight of the Son of God; that moreadvanced Christians should so think of the Son of God as not to losesight of the Son of man. Augustine well understood how the thought ofthe Son of man is fitted to our weakness; and that the best and mostadvanced of us in this mortal life are never so strong as to be able todo without it. Have we ever tried this with our children? We tell themthat God made them, and takes care of them, and loves them, and hearstheir prayers, and knows what is in their hearts, and cannot bear whatis evil. These are such notions of God as a child requires, and canunderstand. But, if we join with them some of those other notions whichbelong to God as he is in himself; that he is a Spirit, not to be seen, not to be conceived of as in any one place, or in any one form; what dowe but embarrass our child's mind, and lessen that sense of near anddear relation to God which, our earlier accounts of God had given him?Yet we must teach him something of this sort, if we would prevent himfrom forming unworthy notions of God, such as have been the beginningof all idolatry. Here, then, is the blessing of the revelation of God inChrist. All that he can understand of God, or love in him, or fear inhim--that is to be found in Christ. Christ made him, takes care of him, can hear his prayers, can read his little heart, loves him tenderly; yetcannot bear what is evil, and will strictly judge him at the last day. But what we must teach when we speak of God, yet which has a tendency tolessen the liveliness of our impressions of him, this has no place whenwe speak of Christ. Christ has a body, incorruptible and glorifiedindeed, such as they who are Christ's shall also wear at his coming, yetstill a body. Christ is not to be seen, indeed, for the clouds havereceived him out of our sight: yet he may be conceived of as in oneplace--at the right hand of God; as in one certain and well-knownform--the form of the Son of man. Yet let us observe again, and bethankful for the perfect wisdom of God. Even while presenting to us Godin Christ; that is to say, God with all those attributes which we canunderstand, and fear, and love; and without those which, throw us, as itwere, to an infinite distance, overwhelming our minds, and baffling allour conceptions; even then the utmost care is taken to make us rememberthat God in himself is really that infinite and incomprehensible Beingto whom we cannot, in our present state, approach; that even hismanifestation of himself in Christ Jesus, is one less perfect than weshall be permitted to see hereafter; that Christ stands at the righthand of the Majesty on high; that he has received from the Father allhis kingdom and his glory; finally, that the Father is greater than he, inasmuch as any other nature added to the pure and perfect essence ofGod, must, in a certain measure, if I may venture so to speak, be acoming down to a lower point, from the very and unmixed Divinity. 

I have purposely mentioned this last circumstance, although it is notthe view that I wish particularly to take to-day, because such passagesas that which I quoted, where Christ tells his disciples that his Fatherwas greater than he, and many others of the same sort, throughout theNew Testament, are sometimes apt to embarrass and perplex us, if we donot consider their peculiar object. It was very necessary, especially ata time when men were so accustomed to worship their highest gods underthe form of men, that whilst the gospel was itself holding out the manChrist Jesus as the object of religious faith, and fear, and love, andteaching that all power was given to him, in heaven and in earth, --itshould, also, guard us against supposing that it meant to represent Godas, in himself, wearing a human form, or having a nature partaking ofour infirmities; and, therefore, it always speaks of there beingsomething in God higher, and more perfect, than could possibly berevealed to man; and for this eternal and infinite, and inconceivableBeing, it claims the reserve of our highest thoughts, or, rather, itcommands us to believe, that they who shall hereafter see God face toface, shall be allowed to see something still greater than is nowrevealed to us, even in him who is the express image of God, and thebrightness of his glory. 

But, now, to return to what I was dwelling on before. It is not only forchildren, that the revelation of God in Christ is so valuable; it isfitted to the wants of us all, at all times, and under allcircumstances. Say, that we are in joy; say, that we are enjoying someof the festivities of this season. It is quite plain, that, at whatevermoment the thought of God is unwelcome to us, that moment is one of sinor unbelief: yet, how can we dare to mix up the notion of the most highGod with any earthly merriment, or festivity? Then, if we think of himwho was present at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and who worked amiracle for no other object than to increase the enjoyment of thatmarriage supper, do we not feel how the highest thoughts may be joinedwith the most common occasions? how we may bring Christ home with, us toour social meetings, to bless us, and to sanctify them? Imagine him inour feasts as he was in Cana:--we may do it without profaneness; beingsure, from that example, that he condemns not innocent mirth; that it isnot merely because there is a feast, or because friends and neighboursare gathered together, that Christ cannot, therefore, be in the midst ofus. This alone does not drive him away; but, oh consider, with what earswould he have listened to any words of unkindness, of profaneness, or ofimpurity! with what eyes would he have viewed any intemperance, orrevelling; any such, immoderate yielding up of the night to pleasure, that a less portion of the next day can be given to duty and to God!Even as he would have heard or seen such things in Cana of Galilee, sodoes he hear and see them amongst us; the same gracious eye of love ison our moderate and permitted enjoyments; the same turning away from, the same firm and just displeasure at every word or deed which turnspleasure into sin. 

But if I seek for instances to show how God in Christ is brought verynear to us, what can I choose more striking than that most solemn act ofChristian communion to which we are called this day? For, what is therein our mortal life, what joy, what sorrow, what feeling elated orsubdued, which is not in that communion brought near to Christ toreceive his blessing? What is the first and outward thing of which itreminds us? Is it not that last supper in Jerusalem, in which men, --thetwelve disciples, the first members of our Christian brotherhood, --werebrought into such solemn nearness to God, as seems to have begun theprivileges of heaven upon earth? They were brought near at once toChrist and to one another: united to one another in him, in that doublebond which, is the perfection at once of our duty and of our happiness. And so in our communion we, too, draw near to Christ and to each other;we feel--who is there at that moment, at least, that does notfeel?--what a tie there is to bind each of us to his brother, when wecome to the table of our common Lord. So far, the Lord's Supper is but atype of what every Christian meeting should be: never should any of usbe gathered together on any occasion of common life, in our families orwith our neighbours; we should sit down to no meal, we should meet in nocompany, without having Christ also in the midst of us; withoutremembering what we all are to him, and what we each therefore are toour brethren. But when we further recollect what there is in the Lord'sSupper beyond the mere meeting of Christ and his disciples; what it iswhich the bread and the wine commemorate; of what we partake when, astrue Christians, we eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; then weshall understand that God indeed is brought very near to us; inasmuch, as he who is a Christian, and partakes sincerely of Christian communion, is a partaker also of Christ: and as belonging to his body, his livingspiritual body, the universal Church, receives his share of all thoseblessings, of all that infinite love which the Father shows continuallyto the head of that body, his own well-beloved Son. 

Say not then in your hearts, Who can ascend up into heaven, that is, tobring Christ down? As on this day, when he took our nature upon him, hecame down to abide with us for ever; to abide with, us, even when weshould see him with our eyes no more: for whilst he was on earth he sotook part in all the concerns of life, in all its duties, its sorrows, and its joys, that memory, when looking back on the past, can fancy himpresent still; and then let the liveliest fancy do its work to theutmost, it cannot go beyond the reality; he is present still, for thatbelongs to his almightiness; he is present with us, because he is God;and we can fancy him with us, because he is man. This is the way tolessen our distance from God and heaven, by bringing Christ continuallyto us on earth: the sky is closed, and shows no sign; all thingscontinue as they were from the beginning of the world; evil abounds, andtherefore the faith of many waxes cold; but Christ was and is amongstus; and we need no surer sign than that sign of the prophetJonah--Christ crucified and Christ risen--to make us feel that we maylive with God daily upon earth, and doing so, shall live with him for aneternal life, in a country that cannot pass away. 

LECTURE XXIII. 

 * * * * *

SUNDAY NEXT BEFORE EASTER. 

 * * * * *

MATTHEW xxvi. 40, 41. 

_What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that yeenter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but theflesh is weak_. 

These words, we cannot doubt, have an application to ourselves, and toall Christians, far beyond the particular occasion on which they wereactually spoken. They are, in fact, the words which Christ addressesdaily to all of us. Every day, when he sees how often we have goneastray from him, he repeats to us, Could ye not watch with me one hour?Every day he commands us to watch and pray, that we enter not intotemptation; every day he reminds us, that however willing may be ourspirits, yet our flesh is weak; and that through that weakness, sinprevails over it, and having triumphed over our flesh, proceeds toenslave our spirit also. 

And as the words are applicable to us every day, so also are they in aparticular manner suitable now, when the season of Lent is so nearlyover, and Easter is so fast approaching. Have we been unable to watch, with Christ one hour? Already are the good resolutions with which, we, perhaps, began Lent, broken in many instances; and the impressions, ifany such were made in us, are already weakened. They have been aburden, which we have shaken off, because the weakness of our naturefound it too heavy to bear. Sad it is to think how often this sameprocess has been repeated in all time, how often it will be repeatedto the end. 

Let us just review what the course of this process has probably been. Now, as the parable of the Sower describes three several sorts ofpersons, who never bring forth, fruit; so in the very same persons, there is at different times something of each of the three charactersthere described. We, the very same persons, are at one time hard, atanother careless, and at another over-busy; although, if compared with, other persons, and in the general form of their characters, some arehard, and others are careless, and others over-busy; different personshaving different faults predominantly. But even the hardness of the roadside, although God forbid that it should be our prevailing temper, yetsurely it does sometimes exist in too many of us. In common speech, wetalk of a person showing a hard temper, meaning, generally, a hardtemper towards other men. We have done wrong, but being angry when weare reproved for it, we will not acknowledge it at all, and cheat ourconsciences, by dwelling upon the supposed wrong that has been done tous in some over-severity of reproof or punishment, instead of confessingand repenting of the original wrong which we ourselves did. But is itnot true, that a hard temper towards man is very often, evenconsciously, a hard temper towards God? Does it never happen, that ifconscience presents to us the thought of God, whether as a God ofjudgment to terrify us, or as a God of love to melt us, we repel it withimpatience, or with sullenness? Does not the heart sometimes almostspeak aloud the language of blasphemy: Who is God, that I should mindhim? I do not care what may happen, I will not be softened. Do not allsorts of unbelieving thoughts pass rapidly through the mind at suchmoments; first in their less daring form, whispering, as the serpent didto Eve, that we shall not surely die; that we shall have time to repentby and by; that God will not be so strict a judge as to condemn us forsuch a little; that by some means or other, we shall escape? But thenthey come, also, in their bolder form: What do I or any man know aboutanother world, or God's judgments? may it not be all a fiction, so thatI have, in reality, nothing to fear? In short, under one form oranother, is it not true, that our hearts have sometimes displayedactually hardness towards God; that the thought of God has been actuallypresented to our minds, but that we have turned it aside, and have notsuffered it to make any impression upon us? And thus, we have not onlynot watched with Christ according to his command, but have actually toldhim that we would not. But this has been in our worst temper, certainly;it may not have happened, --I trust that it has not happened often. Morecommonly, I dare say, the fault has been carelessness. We have gone outof this place; sacred names have ceased to sound in our ears; sights inany degree connected with, holy things have been all withdrawn from us. Other sounds and other sights have been before us, and our minds haveyielded to them altogether. There are minds, indeed, which have nospring of thought in themselves; which are quiet, and in truth empty, till some outward objects come to engage them. Take them at a momentwhen they are alone, or when there is no very interesting object beforethem, and ask them of what they are thinking. If the answer were trulygiven, such a mind would say, "Of nothing. " Certain images may befaintly presented to it; it may be that it is not altogether a blank;yet it could not name anything distinctly. No form had been vivid enoughto produce any corresponding resolution in us; we were, as it were, in astate between sleeping and waking, with neither thoughts nor dreamsdefinite enough to affect us. This state finds exactly all that itdesires in the presence or the near hope of outward objects; the mindlives in its daily pursuits, and companions, and amusements. Whatimpressions have been once produced are soon worn away; and in a soil soshallow nothing makes a durable impression: everything can, as it were, scratch upon its surface, while nothing can strike deeply down within. 

Or, again, take the rarer case of those who are over-busy. There areminds, undoubtedly, which are as incapable of rest as those of thegenerality of men are prone to it; there are minds which enter keenlyinto everything presented to them by their outward senses, and which, when their senses cease to supply them, have an inexhaustible source ofthought within, which furnishes them with abundant matter of reflectionor of speculation. To such a mind, doing is most delightful; whether itbe outward doing, or the mere exercise of thought, either supplies alikethe consciousness of power. Where, then, is there room for the lessobtruding things of God? Into that restless water, another and anotherimage is for ever stepping down, pushing aside and keeping at a distancethe sobering reflections of God and of Christ. Alas! the thorns grow sovigorously in such a soil, that they altogether choke and kill the seedof God's word. 

So, then, we are either asleep, or, if we are awake, we are not wakingwith Christ. On one side, in that garden of Gethsemane were thedisciples sleeping; below, and fast ascending the hill, --not sleeping, certainly, but with lanterns and torches and weapons, --were those whosewaking was for evil. Where were they who watched with Christ one hourthen, --or where are those who watch with him now?

HOW gently, yet how earnestly, does he call upon us to "watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation. " To watch and to pray: for of all thosearound him some were sleeping, and none were praying; so that they whowatched were not watching with him, but against him. In our carelessstate of mind the call to us is to watch; in our over-busy state thecall to us is to pray; in our hard state there is equal need for both. And even in our best moods, when we are not hard, nor careless, norover-busy, when we are at once sober and earnest and gentle, then notleast does Christ call upon us to watch and to pray, that we may retainthat than which else no gleam of April sunshine was ever more fleeting;that we may perfect that which else is of the earth, earthly, and whenwe lie down in the dust will wither and come to dust also. 

Jesus Christ brought life and immortality, it is said, to light throughthe gospel. He brought life and immortality to light:--is this indeedtrue as far as we are concerned? What do we think would be thedifference in this point between many of us--who will dare say howmany?--and a school, I will not say of Jewish, but even of Greek orRoman or Egyptian boys, eighteen hundred, or twenty-four hundred, orthree or four thousand years ago? Compare us at our worship with them, and then, I grant, the difference would appear enormous. We have noimages, making the glory of the incorruptible God like to corruptibleman; we have no vain stream of incense; no shedding of the blood ofbulls and calves in sacrifice: the hymns which are sung here are notvain repetitions or impious fables, which gave no word of answer tothose questions which it most concerns mankind to know. Here, indeed, Jesus Christ is truly set forth, crucified among us; here life andimmortality are brought to light. But follow us out of this place, --toour respective pursuits and amusements, to our social meetings, or ourtimes of solitary thought, --and wherein do we seem to see life andimmortality more brightly revealed than to those heathen schools of old?Do we enjoy any worldly good less keenly, or less shrink from anyworldly evil? Death, which to the heathen view was the end of allthings, is to us (so our language goes) the gate of life. Do we think ofit with more hope and less fear than the heathen did? Christ has risen, and has reconciled us to God. Is God more to us?--God now revealed to usas our reconciled Father--do we oftener think of him, do we love himbetter, than he was thought of and loved in those heathen schools, whichhad Homer's poetry for their only gospel? We talk of light, ofrevelation, of the knowledge of God, while verily and really we arewalking, not in light, but in darkness: not in knowledge of God, but inblindness and hardness of heart. 

"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. " How great is theloving-kindness of these words, --how gently does Christ bear with theweakness of his disciples! But this thought may be the most blessed orthe most dangerous thought in the world; the most blessed if it touchesus with love, the most dangerous if it emboldens us in sin. He is fullof loving-kindness, full of long-suffering; for days, and weeks, andmonths, and years he bears with us: we grieve him, and he entreats; wecrucify him afresh, yet he will not come down from the cross in powerand majesty; he endures and spares. So it is for days, and months, andyears; for some years it may be to most of us, --for many years to someof the youngest. There may be some here who may go on grieving Christ, and crucifying him afresh, for as much as seventy years; and he willbear with them all that time, and his sun will daily shine upon them, and his creatures and his word will minister to their pleasure; and hehimself will say nothing to them but to entreat them to turn and besaved. This may last, I say, to some amongst us for seventy years; toothers it may last fifty; to many of us it may last for forty, or forthirty; none of us, perhaps, are so old but that it may last with ustwenty, or at the least ten. Such is the prospect before us, if we likeit: not to be depended upon with certainty, it is true, but yet to beregarded as probable. But as these ten, or twenty, or fifty, or seventyyears pass on, Christ will still spare us, but his voice of entreatywill be less often heard; the distance between him and us will beconsciously wider. From one place after another where we once usedsometimes to see him, he will have departed; year after year some objectwhich used once to catch the light from heaven, will have becomeovergrown, and will lie constantly in gloom; year after year the worldwill become to us more entirely devoid of God. If sorrow, or somesoftening joy ever turns our minds towards Christ, we shall be startledat perceiving there is something which keeps us from him, that we cannotearnestly believe in him; that if we speak of loving him, our hearts, which can still love earthly things, feel that the words are butmockery. Alas, alas! the increased weakness of our flesh, has destroyedall the power of our spirit, and almost all its willingness: it is boundwith chains which it cannot break, and, indeed, scarcely desires tobreak. Redemption, Salvation, Victory, --what words are these whenapplied to that enslaved, that lost, that utterly overthrown andvanquished soul, which sin is leading in triumph now, and which willspeedily be given over to walk for ever as a captive in the eternaltriumph of death!

Not one word of what I have said is raised beyond the simplestexpression of truth; this is our portion if we will not watch withChrist. We know how often we have failed to do so, either sleeping incarelessness, or being busy and wakeful, but not with him or for him. Still he calls us to watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation; tomark our lives and actions; to mark them often; to see whether we havedone well or ill in the month past, or in the week past, or in the daypast; to consider whether we are better than we were, or worse; whetherwe think Christ loves us better, or worse; whether we are more or lesscold towards him. I know not what else can be called watching withChrist than such a looking into ourselves as we are in his sight. It isvery hard to be done;--yes, it is hard--harder than anything probablywhich we ever attempted before; and, therefore, we must pray withal forhis help, whose strength is perfected in our weakness. And if it be sohard, and we have need so greatly to pray for God's help, should we notall also be anxious to help one another? And knowing, as we do from ourown consciences, how difficult it is to watch with Christ, and howthankful we should be to any one who were to make it easier to us, should we not be sure that our neighbour is in like case with ourselves;that our help may be as useful to him as we feel that his would be tous? This is our bounden duty of love towards one another; what thenshould be said of us if we not only neglect this duty, but do the verycontrary to it; if we actually help the evil in our brother's heart todestroy him more entirely; if we will not watch with Christ ourselves, and strive to prevent others from doing so?

LECTURE XXIV. 

 * * * * *

GOOD FRIDAY. 

 * * * * *

ROMANS v. 8. 

_God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_. 

We all remember the story in the Gospel, of the different treatmentwhich our Lord met with in the same house, from the Pharisee, who hadinvited him into it, and from the woman who came in and knelt at hisfeet, and kissed them, and bathed them with her tears. Our Lordaccounted for the difference in these words, "To whom little isforgiven, the same loveth little;" which means to speak of the sense orfeeling in the person's own mind, "He who feels that little is or needsto be forgiven him, he also loves little. " And this same differencewhich existed toward him when he was present on earth, exists no lessnow, whenever he is brought before our thoughts. The same sort ofpersons who saw him with indifference, think of him also withindifference; they who saw him with love, think of him also with love. There is no art, no power in the world, which can give an interest towords spoken concerning him, for those who feel that little is and thatlittle needs to be forgiven them, or to those who never consider abouttheir being forgiven at all. To such, this day, with its services, whatthey hear from the Scriptures, or what they hear from men, must bealike a matter of indifference: it is not possible that it should beotherwise. Yet, God forbid that we should design what we are saying thisday only for a certain few of our congregation, as if the rest neitherwould nor could be interested in it. So long as any one is careless, hecannot, it is true, be interested about the things of Christ; but whocan say at what moment, through God's grace, he may cease to becareless? Is it too much to say, that scarcely a service is performed inany congregation in the land, which does not awaken an interest in someone who before was indifferent? I do rot say a deep interest, nor alasting one, but an interest; there is a thought, a heeding, aninclination of the mind to listen, created probably by the Churchservices in some one or other, every time that they are performed. As wenever can know in whom this may be so created, as all have great needthat it should be created, as all are deeply concerned whether they feelthat they are so or no, so we speak to all alike; and if the languagedoes pass over their ears like an unknown or indistinct sound, the faultand the loss are theirs; but the Church has borne her witness, and hasso far done her duty. 

But again, for ears not careless, but most interested; for hearts towhom Christ is more than all in the world besides; for minds, beforewhom the wisdom of the gospel is ever growing, rising to a loftierheight, and striking downwards to a depth more profound, --yet withoutend in its height or its depth; is there not, also, a difficulty inspeaking to them of that great thing which the Church celebrates to-day?Is there no difficulty in awakening their interest, or rather how can weescape even from wearying or repelling them, when their own affectionsand deep thoughts must find all words of man, whether of themselves orothers, infinitely unworthy to express either the one or the other? Tosuch, then, the words of the preacher may be no more than music withoutany words at all; which does but serve to lead and accompany our ownthoughts, without distinctly suggesting any thoughts of another tointerrupt the workings of our own minds. We would speak of Christ'sdeath; most good it is for us and for you to think upon it; so far asour words suit the current of your own thoughts, use them and listen tothem; so far as they are a too unworthy expression of what we ought tothink and feel, follow your own reflections, and let the words neitheroffend you nor distract you. 

I would endeavour just to touch, upon some of the purposes for which theScripture tells us that Christ died, and for which his death wasdeclared to be the great object of our faith. This done in the simplestand fewest words will best show the infinite greatness of the subject;and how truly it is, so to speak, the central point of Christianity. 

First of all, Christ died as a proper sacrifice for sin; as a sacrifice, the virtue of which, is altogether distinct from our knowledge of it, orfrom any effect which it has a tendency to produce on our own minds. Weare forgiven for his sake; we are acquitted through his death, andthrough faith in his blood. What a view does this open, partially, indeed, --for what mortal eye can reach to the end of it?--of the evil ofsin, and of God's love! of what God's justice required, and of whatGod's love fulfilled! This great sacrifice was made once, but it willnot be made again; for those who despise this there remains no moreoffering for sin, but their sin abideth with them for ever. 

Secondly, Christ's death is revealed to us as a motive capable ofovercoming all temptations to evil. "How much more shall the blood ofChrist purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?""He suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring usto God;" that is, that a consideration of what Christ's death declaresto us should have power to melt the hardest heart, and to sober thelightest: that, when we think of Christ dying, dying for us, and sopurchasing for us the forgiveness of sins, and everlasting life, such alove, and such a prospect of peace with God, and of glory, should in thehighest degree soften and enkindle us; and from love for him, andconfidence of hope through the prospect which he has given us, we shouldbe able to overcome all temptations. "I am persuaded, " says St. Paul, "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, norpowers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love ofGod, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. "

Thirdly, Christ suffered for as, leaving us an example that we shouldfollow his steps. He left us an example of all meekness, and patience, and humility; he left us an example of perfect submission to God's will;he left us an infinite comfort by letting us feel when we are in anytrouble, or pain, or affliction, that he was troubled too; that he knewpain, and endured affliction. Above all, in that hour which must come toall of us, he has left us the greatest of all supports;--for he enduredto die; and we may enter with less fear into the darkness of the grave, for even there Christ has been for our sakes, and arose from out of it aconqueror. 

Fourthly, Christ died that he might gather together in one the childrenof God that were scattered abroad; he died to purchase to himself hisuniversal Church. So it is said in the Scriptures: and on thisparticular purpose of his death, it may not be amiss to dwell, for noneso needs to be held in remembrance. Many there are, and ever have been, who have rested their whole hope towards God on his sacrifice; many whohave learnt from his cross to overcome sin; from his resurrection toovercome the world; many who, amidst all the troubles of life, and inthe hour of death, have been supported by the thought of his example. But where is his universal Church? where the company of God's childrengathered together into one? where is the city set upon the hill, thatcannot be hid? where is the visible kingdom of God, where all its peopleare striving under one Divine Head, against sin, the world, and thedevil? This is the sign which we look for and cannot find; this is thefulfilment of the prophecies for which we seem destined to wait in vain. 

And what if, on the contrary, that which is called the Church act ratherthe part of the world; if our worst foes be truly those of our ownhousehold: if they who should have been for our help, be rather anoccasion of falling: if one of our greatest difficulties in followingChrist steadily, arise from the total want of encouragement, yea, oftenfrom the direct opposition of those who are themselves pledged to followhim to the death; if that Church, which was to have been the clearestsign to the world of the truth of Christ's gospel, be now, in manyrespects, rather a stumbling-block to the adversary and unbeliever, sothat the name of God is through us blasphemed among the heathen, ratherthan glorified; may we not humble ourselves before God in sorrow and inshame? and must we not confess, that through our sin, and the sin of ourfathers, Christ, in respect of this one purpose of his death, has as yetdied in vain?

Israel after the flesh, lamenting their Jerusalem which is now nottheirs, and mourning over their ruined temple, in all their synagoguesrepeat constantly the prayer, O Lord, build thou the walls of Jerusalem!O Lord, build! O Lord, build! O Lord, build! is the solemn chorus, marking by its repetition the earnestness of their desire. And shouldnot this be the prayer of the Israel of God, scattered now as they areinto their thousand divided and corrupted synagogues, and no token to beseen of the pure and universal Church, the living temple of the Spiritof God; should not we too, privately and publicly, join in the prayer ofthe earthly Israel, and pray that Christ would build for us the walls ofour true Jerusalem? For only think what it would be, if Christ's Churchexisted more than in name; consider what it would be if baptism were areal bond; if we looked on one another as brethren, redeemed by oneransom, pledged to one service; if we bore with one another'sweaknesses; if we helped one another's endeavours; if each saw andheard, in the words and life of his neighbour, an image of Christ, and apledge of the truth of his promises. Consider what it would be, if, withno quarrels, with no jealousies, with no unkindness, we sought not everyman his own, but every man also another's welfare; as true members oneof another, --of one body, of which Christ is the head. Consider what itwould be, if our judgments of men and things were like Christ'sjudgments; neither strengthening the heart of the careless and sinful byour laxity, nor making sad the heart of God's true servant by ouruncharitableness; not putting little things in the place of great, norgreat things in the place of little; not neglecting the unity of theSpirit; not stickling for a sameness in the form. Or, if we carry ourviews a little wider; if we look out upon the world at large, and hearof rumours of wars, and see the signs of internal disorders, andperhaps may think that the clouds are gathering which, herald one of thecomings of the Son of man to judgment, whether the last of all or not itwere vain to ask; how blessed would it be, if we could see such an arkof Christ's Church as should float visibly upon, the stormy waters;gathering within it, in peace and safety, men of various dispositionsand conditions, and opinions; those who held much of truth, and thosewho had mixed with it much of error: those whom Christ would call clean, and those, too, whom some of their brethren call unclean, but whomChrist has redeemed, and will save no less than their despisers; all, inshort, who fled from sin and from the world to Christ, and to thecompany of Christ's people! O if we could but see such an ark preparingwhile God's long-suffering yet withholds the flood! O that all God'sscattered and divided children would join together in one earnestprayer, O Lord, build thou the walls of Jerusalem! O Lord, build! OLord, build! O Lord, build!

Yet, for this, among other purposes of mercy, did the Son of God, as onthis day, suffer death upon the cross: he died that we might be one inhim. Let us turn, then, from the thought of the general temple in ruins, and let us see whether we cannot, at any rate, within the walls of ourown little particular congregation, fulfil also this object of Christ'sdeath, and be one in him. Let us consider one another, to provoke untolove and to good works: we too often consider one another for the verycontrary purpose, to provoke to contempt or ill-will. True it is, thatif we look for it we can find much of evil in our brethren, and they canfind much also in us; and we might become all haters of one another, allin some sort deserving to be hated. But where is he who is entitled tohate another's evil when he has evil in himself; and when Christ, whohad none, did not hate the evil of us all, but rather died to save it?And is it not true also, that, if we look for it, we can also find inevery one something to love? something, undoubtedly, even in him who hasin himself least: but much, infinitely much in all, when we look uponthem as Christ's redeemed. Not more beautifully than truly has it beensaid, that Christian souls--

 "Though worn and soiled by sinful clay, Are yet, to eyes that see them true, All glistening with baptismal dew. "

They have the seal of belonging to Christ; they are his and ourbrethren. And, as his latest command, and his beloved Apostle's also, was that we should love one another; so, if we would bring all oursolemn thoughts of Christ's death to one point, and endeavour to derivefrom it some one particular lesson for our daily lives, I know not thatany would be more needed or better for us, than that we shouldespecially apply the thought of Christ dying on the cross for us tosoften our angry, and proud, and selfish feelings; to restrain us fromangry or sneering words; from unkind, offensive, rude, or insultingactions; to excite us to gentleness, courtesy, kindness; rememberingthat he, be he who he may, whom we allow ourselves to despise, or todislike, or to annoy, or to neglect, was one so precious in Christ'ssight, that he laid down his life for his sake, and invites him to befor ever with, him and with his Father. 

LECTURE XXV. 

 * * * * *

EASTER DAY. 

 * * * * *

JOHN xx. 20. 

_Then the disciples went away again unto their own home_. 

With this verse ends the portion of the scripture chosen for the gospelin this morning's service. It finishes the account of the visit of Peterand John to the sepulchre; and, therefore, the close of the extract atthis point is sufficiently natural. Yet the effect of the quiet tone ofthese words, just following the account of the greatest event whichearth has ever witnessed, is, I think, singularly impressive; the moreso when we remember that they were written by one of the very persons, whose visit had been just described; and that the writer, therefore, could tell full well, to how intense an interest there had succeededthat solemn calm. They went away from the very sight, if I may so speak, of Christ risen, to their own homes. And what thoughts do we supposethat they carried with them? Let us endeavour to recall them, for ourbenefit, also, who, like them, are going, as it were, to the ordinarytenure of our daily lives from this day's high solemnity. 

The disciples went away to their own homes; and there they waited, either in Jerusalem or in Galilee, pursuing, as we find from the lastchapter of St. John, their common occupations, till, after their Lord'sascension, power was given them from on high, and the great work oftheir apostleship began. During this period, Christ appeared to themseveral times: he conversed with them, he ate and drank with them: buthe did not live continually with them, as he had done before hiscrucifixion: he did not take them about with him as before, while he wasperforming the part of the great prophet of the house of Israel. Theywere now at their own homes waiting for his call to more active duties. They had seen him dead, and they had seen, him risen, and they werereceiving into their souls all the lessons of his life and death andresurrection, brought before them, and impressed upon them by that HolySpirit, who, according to Christ's promise, was to take of the thingswhich are Christ's, and to show them to Christ's disciples. 

It is true that there came upon them, after this, an especial visitationof the Spirit of power, to fit them for their particular work ofapostles or messengers to mankind. Having been converted themselves, they were to strengthen their brethren. And as this especial visitationof the Holy Spirit was given to them only, and to those on whom theythemselves laid their hands, so none have ever since been called to thatparticular work to which they were called, in any thing of the samedegree of fulness. What is peculiar to them as apostles is notapplicable exactly to us; but we are all concerned in what belongs tothem as Christians: in this respect, their case is ours; and they, whenat their own homes, and engaged in their own callings, stand in the samesituation as we all. 

We may, however, still make a two-fold division; we may regard theapostles going away to their own homes, as a temporary thing, as a mereterm of preparation for the duties which they were afterwards called to;or we may look upon it as complete so far as earth is concerned, since, taking them as Christians only and not as apostles, they might have solived on to the end of their lives, having received all those helpswhich were needed for their own personal salvation, and having only touse them daily for their soul's benefit. This same distinction we mayapply to ourselves. We may consider ourselves as going to our own homesfor a time only, awaiting our call to active life; or we may considerourselves as withdrawing, after every celebration of Christ'sresurrection, to that round of daily duties which on earth shall neveralter; and to which all the helps derived from our communion with Christare to be applied, with nothing future, so for as earth is concerned, for which we may need them. So then, of whatever age we may be, what issaid of the apostles in the text may apply to us also: after havingwitnessed, as it were, Christ's resurrection, we go away to our ownhomes. Let us first take that part of the text which is common to usall, though not in the same degree--the having been witnesses ofChrist's resurrection. John and Peter found him not in the sepulchre;they found the linen clothes and the napkin lying there, but he wasgone. And upon this, as John assures us, both for himself and hiscompanion, "they believed. " They believed, we should observe, when asyet they had no more seen Jesus himself after his resurrection, than weLave now. They only knew that he had been dead, and that he was not inthe sepulchre. And this we know also; we have not seen him, indeed, since his resurrection: but we are sure he is not in the sepulchre. Weare sure that the malice of his enemies did not do its work: we aresure, for we are ourselves witnesses of it, that that name, and thatword, which they hoped would have been destroyed for ever, like thenames of many, not only of false prophets and deceivers, but even ofgood men and of wise, have not perished, but have brought forth fruitmore abundantly, from the very cause that was intended to put them out. Christ's gospel, assuredly, is a living thing, full of vigour and fullof power; it has worked mightily for good, and is working; it is so fullof blessing, it tends so largely towards the happiness that is enjoyedupon earth, that we are quite sure it is not lying still buried inChrist's sepulchre. 

They (the two disciples) then went away believing, because they foundthat he was not in the sepulchre. But Mary Magdalene came and told them, that she had seen him risen, and had heard his voice with her ears. Whatshe told Peter and John, Peter and John are now telling to us. They tellus that they have heard him, have seen him with their eyes, have lookedupon him, yea, that their hands have handled him. They tell us even morethan Mary Magdalene told them; for she had not been allowed to touchhim. We may well trust their testimony, as they trusted hers, beingquite ready indeed to believe that he was alive, because they had foundthat he was not amongst the dead. And so we, finding that he is notamongst the dead, seeing and knowing the fruits of his gospel, theliving and ever increasing fruits of it, may well believe that itsauthor is risen, and that the pains of death were loosed from off him, because it was not possible that he should be holden by them. 

In this way, we, like the two disciples, may be all said to be witnessesof Christ's resurrection. May it not be said still more of those amongstus who assembled this morning round Christ's table, to keep alive thememory of his death; when we partook of that bread, and drank of thatcup, of which so many thousands and millions, in every age and in everyland, have eaten and drunken, all receiving them, with nearly the samewords, --the body that was given for us, the blood that was shed forus, --all, making allowances for human weakness, finding in thatcommunion the peace and the strength of God; all alike receiving it withpenitent hearts, and with faith, and purposes of good for the time tocome? Did we not then witness that Christ is not perished? that he hasbeen ever, and still is, mighty to save? That command given to twelvepersons, in an obscure chamber in Jerusalem, by one who, the next day, was to die as a malefactor, has been, and is obeyed from one end of theworld to another; and wherever it has been obeyed, there, in proportionto the sincerity of the obedience, has been the fulness of the blessing. 

But this is now past, as with the two disciples, and we are going againto our own homes. There, neither the empty sepulchre nor the risenSaviour are present before us, but common scenes and familiaroccupations, which, in themselves have nothing in them of Christ. So itmust be; we cannot be always within these walls; we cannot always beengaged in public prayer; we cannot always be hearing Christ's word, norpartaking of his communion; we must be going about our several works, and must be busied in them; some of us in preparation for other work tocome, others to go on till the end of their lives with this only. May wenot hope that Christ, and Christ's Spirit, will visit us the while inthese our daily callings, as he came to his disciples Peter and John, when following their business as fishers on the lake of Gennesareth?

How can we get him to visit us? There is one answer--by prayer and bywatchfulness. By prayer, whether we are in our preparatory state, or ourfixed one; by prayer, and I think I may add, by praying in our ownwords. Of course, when we pray together, some of us must join in thewords of others; and it makes little difference, whether those words bespoken or read. But when we pray alone, some, perhaps, may still usenone but prayers made by others, especially the Lord's prayer. We shouldremember, however, that the Lord's prayer was given for this verypurpose, to teach us how to pray for ourselves. But it does not do this, if we use it alone, and still more, if we use it without understandingit. If we do understand it, and study it, it will indeed teach us topray; it will show us what we most need in prayer, and what are ourgreatest evils; but surely it may be said, that no man ever learnt thislesson well without wishing to practise it; no man ever used the Lord'sprayer with understanding and with earnestness, without adding to itothers of his own. And this is not a trifling matter. We know thedifficulty of attending in prayer; and if we use the words of othersonly, which we must, therefore, repeat from memory, it is perfectlypossible to say them over without really joining with them in our minds:we may say them over to ourselves, and be actually thinking of otherthings the while. And the same thing holds good, of course, even withprayers that we have made ourselves, if we accustom ourselves to repeatthem without alteration; they then become, in fact, the work of anotherthan our actual mind, and may be repeated by memory alone. Therefore, itseems to be of consequence to vary the words, and even the matter of ourprivate prayers, that so we may not deceive ourselves, by repeatingmerely, when we fancy that we are praying. Ten words actually made byourselves at the moment, and not remembered, are a real prayer; for itis not hypocrisy that is the most common danger; our temper, when we areon our knees, is apt indeed to be careless, but not, I hope and believe, deceitful. This, of course, must be well known to a very largeproportion of us; but, perhaps, there are some to whom it may beuseful; some to whom the advice may not yet have suggested itself, thatthey should make their own prayers, in part, at least, whenever theykneel down to their private devotions. 

And this sort of prayer, with God's blessing, is likely to make uswatchful. We rise in the morning: we say some prayers of our own; wehear others read to us; and yet it is possible that we may not havereally prayed ourselves in either case; we may not have broughtourselves truly into the presence of God. Hence our true condition, withall its dangers, has not been brought before our minds; the need ofwatchfulness has not been shown to us. But with real prayer of our ownhearts' making it is different; God is then present to us, and sin andrighteousness: our dream of carelessness is, for a moment at least, broken. No doubt it is but too easy to dream again; yet still anopportunity of exerting ourselves to keep awake is given us; we areroused to consciousness of our situation; and that, at any rate, rendersexertion possible. There is no doubt that souls are most commonly lostby this continued dreaming, till at length, when seemingly awake (theyare not so really), they are like men who answer to the call that wouldarouse them, but they answer, in fact, unconsciously. We cannot tell forourselves or others any way by which our souls shall certainly be saved, in spite of carelessness; or any way by which, carelessness shall beovercome necessarily; all that can be done is, to point out how it maybe overcome, by what means the soul may be helped in its endeavours; nothow those endeavours and holy desires may be rendered needless. 

Thus, then, we may gain Christ to visit us at our own homes and in ourcommon callings, when we are returned to them. And that difference whichI spoke of as existing between us, that some of us are waiting forChrist's call to a higher field of action, while others are engaged inthat sort of duty which will last their lives, I know not thatthis--though it be often important, and though I am often obliged todwell on it--need enter into our considerations to-day. Rather, perhaps, may we overlook this difference, and feel that all of us hereassembled--those in their state of earliest preparation for afterduties; those to whom that earliest state is passed away, and who areentered into another state, in part preparatory, in part partaking ofthe character of actual life; and those also whose preparation, speakingof earth, only, is completed altogether, who must be doing, and whosetime even of doing is far advanced--that all of us have in truth onegreat call yet before us: and that, with respect to that, we are all, asit were, preparing still. And for that great call, common to all of us, we need all the same common readiness; and that readiness will beeffected in us only by the same means, --if now, before it come, Christand Christ's Spirit shall, in our homes and daily callings, be persuadedto visit us. 

LECTURE XXVI. 

 * * * * *

WHITSUNDAY. 

 * * * * *

ACTS xix. 2. 

_Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed_?

It appears, by what follows these words, that the question here relatedespecially to those gifts of the Holy Ghost which were given, in thefirst age of the church, as a sign of God's power, and a witness thatthe work of the gospel was from God. Yet although this be so, andtherefore the words, in this particular sense, cannot to any goodpurpose be asked now; yet there is another sense, and that not a lowerbut a far higher one, in which we may ask them, and in which it concernsus in the highest degree, what sort of answer we can give to them, Isay, "what sort of answer;" for I think it is true of all Christiansthat, in a certain measure, they have received the Holy Ghost. Not onlydoes the doctrine of our own, and I believe every other, church, concerning baptism, show this: but it seems also necessarily to follow, from those words of St. Paul, that "No man can say that Jesus is theLord but by the Holy Ghost. " And yet the Scripture and common experiencealike show us, that a man may call Jesus Lord, and yet not be reallyhis, nor one who will be owned by Him at the last day. So that what isof real importance to us is, the degree of fulness and force with whichwe could give the answer to the words of the text; not simply sayingthat we have received the Holy Ghost, which would be true, but might befar from sufficient; but saying that we have received Him and arereceiving Him more and more, so that our hearts and lives are showingthe impression of his heavenly seal daily more and more clearly andcompletely. 

And this must really have always been the answer which it concernedevery Christian to be able to make; although it has been in variousinstances, and by very opposite parties, tried to be evaded. It isevaded alike by those who set too highly the grace given in baptism, andby those who, setting this too low, direct our attention to anotherpoint in a man's life, which they call his justification or conversion. For both alike would give an exaggerated importance to one particularmoment of our lives, and to the grace then given. Now, the importance ofparticular moments in men's lives differs exceedingly in differentpersons; but yet in all may be exaggerated. I suppose that if ever inany man's life a particular point was of immense importance, it was thepoint of his conversion in the case of St. Paul. There were here unitedall that grace which according to one view accompanies baptismespecially, and all which according to the other view accompaniesconversion and justification. Here was a point which separated St. Paul's later life from his earlier with a broader line of separationthan can possibly be the ease in general. There can be no doubt that he, if ever man did, received at that particular time the Holy Ghost. Butif, ten or twenty years afterwards, St. Paul had been asked concerningwhat the Holy Ghost had done for him, he would not certainly haveconfined himself in his answer to the grace once given him at hisconversion and baptism, but would have spoken of that which he had beenreceiving since every hour and every day, carrying forward andcompleting that work of God which had been begun at the time of hisjourney to Damascus. And as he had received more and more grace, so washis confidence in his acceptance with God at the last day more and moreassured. For he writes to the Corinthians, many years after hisconversion and baptism, that he kept under his body, and was bringing itinto subjection, lest that by any means, after having preached toothers, he should be himself a castaway. And some years later still, though he does not use so strong an expression as that of becoming acastaway, yet he still says, even when writing to the Philippians fromRome, that he counted not himself to have apprehended, nor to haveattained his object fully; but forgetting what was behind, even thegrace of his conversion and baptism, he pressed on to the things whichwere before, even that continued and increasing grace which was requiredto bring him in safety to his heavenly crown. But if we go on some yearsyet farther, when his labours were ended, and the sure prospect ofspeedy death was before him; when the past grace was everything, andwhat he could expect yet to come was scarcely any other than thatparticular aid which we need in our struggle with the last enemy--death;then, his language is free from all uncertainty; then, in the full senseof the words, he could say that he had received the Holy Ghost, that hisspirit had been fully born again for its eternal being, and that thereonly remained the raising up also of his mortal body, to complete thatnew creation of body and soul which Christ's Spirit works in Christ'sredeemed. "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, Ihave kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me my crown ofrighteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me atthat day. "

It seems, then, that the great question which we should be anxious tobe able to answer in the affirmative, is this, "_Are we receiving_ theHoly Ghost since we believed?" "Since we believed, " whether we choose tocarry back the date of our first belief to the very time of our baptism, when grace was given to us, --we know not to what degree nor how, --yetgiven to us, as being then received into Christ's flock; or whether wego back only to that time when we can ourselves remember ourselves tohave believed, and so can remember that God's grace was given to us. Have we been ever since, and are we still, receiving the Holy Ghost? Oblessed above all blessedness, if we can say that this is true of us! Oblessed with a blessedness most complete, if we only do not too entirelyabandon ourselves to enjoy it! Elect of God; holy and beloved; justifiedand sanctified; there is nothing in all the world that could impair ordestroy such happiness, except we ourselves, in evil hour, believed itto be out of the reach of danger. 

But if the witness of memory and conscience be less favourable; if wecan remember long seasons of our lives during which we were notreceiving the Holy Ghost; long seasons of a cold and hard state, inwhich there was, as it were, neither rain nor dew, nor yet sun to ripenwhat had grown before; but all was so ungenial that no new thing grew;and what had grown was withering and almost dying; what shall be said, then, and how can the time be made up which was so wasted? But weremember, it may be, that this deadly season passed away: the rain fellonce more, and the tender dew, and the quickening sun shone brightly:our spiritual growth began again, and is now going on healthily; we havenot always been receiving the Holy Ghost since we believed, but we arereceiving him now. How gracious, then, has God been to us, that he hasagain renewed us unto repentance; that he has shown that we have not, inthe fullest sense, sinned against the Holy Ghost, seeing that the HolyGhost still abides with us! we grieved him, and tried hislong-suffering, but he has not abandoned us to our own evil hearts; weare receiving him who is the giver of life, and we still live. 

But must not we speak of others? is not another case to be supposedpossible? may there not be some who cannot say with truth that they arereceiving the holy Ghost now? They received him once; we doubt it not;perhaps they were receiving him for some length of time; their earlychildhood was watched by Christian care; their youth and early manhood, when it received freshly things of this world, received also, withlively thankfulness, the grace of God; they can remember a time whenthey were growing in goodness; when they were being renewed after theimage of God. But they can remember, also, that this time passed away;the grace of early childhood was put out by the temptations of boyhood;the grace of youth and opening manhood died away amid the hardness ofthis life's maturity. It is so, I believe, often; that boyhood, whichis, as it were, ripened childhood, destroys the grace of our earliestyears; that again, when youth offers us a second beginning of life, weare again impressed with good; but that ripened youth, which is manhood, brings with it again the reason of hardness, and again our spiritualgrowth, is destroyed. We can remember, I am supposing, that this fatalchange did take place; but can we date it to any particular act, ormonth, or day, or hour? We can do so most rarely: in this respect theseed of death can even less be traced to its beginning than the seed oflife. And yet there _was_ a beginning, only we do not remember it. Andwhy do we not remember it? Because the real beginning was in some actwhich seemed of so little consequence that it made no impression; in thealtering some habit which we judged to be a mere trifle; in theindulging some temper which even at the time we hardly noticed. Somesuch little thing, --little in our view of it, --made the fatal turn; wereceived the grace of God less and less: we heeded not the change for aseason; and when it was so marked that we could not but heed it, then wehad ceased to regard it; and so it was that the spring of our life wasdried up: and it is of no more avail to our present and future state, that we once received grace, than the rain of last winter will besufficient to ripen the summer's harvest, if from this time forward wehave nothing but drought and cold. 

Some few, again, there may be, who, within their own recollection, couldnot say that they have received the Holy Ghost: persons who have livedamong careless friends, to whom the way of life has never been steadilypointed out; while the way of death, with all its manifold paths, meeting at last in one, has been continually before them. Shall we saythat these, because they have been baptized, are therefore guilty ofhaving rejected grace given? that this sin is aggravated, because amercy was offered them once of which they were unconscious? We would notsay this; but we would say that it is impossible but that they must havereceived the Holy Ghost within their memory; it is impossible but thatconscience must have sometimes spoken, and that they must have sometimesbeen enabled to obey it; it is impossible but that they must have hadsome notions of sin, and some desires to struggle against it; and so faras they ever felt that desire, it was the work of God's Holy Spirit. Man cannot dare to say how great the amount of their guilt may be; butguilt there certainly is; they have grieved the Holy Spirit; and, thoughwe dare not say that they have utterly blasphemed him, yet they have along hardness to overcome, and every hour of delayed turning to Godincreases it: it may be possible still to overcome it, but meanwhile itis not overcome; they are not receiving the Holy Spirit; they are notbeing renewed into the likeness of Christ, without which no man cansee God. 

Here, then, are the four cases, one of which must belong to every one ofus here assembled. Either we have been always and still are receivingthe Holy Ghost; or we can remember when we were not, but yet arereceiving him now; or we can remember when we were, but yet now are not;or we cannot remember to have received him ever, nor are we yetreceiving him. I cannot say which of the last two states is the mostdreadful, nor scarcely which of the first two states is the mostblessed. But yet as even those happy states admit not ofover-confidence, so neither do the last two most unhappy states obligeus to despair. Not to despair; but they do urge us to every degree offear less than despair. There is far more danger of our not fearingenough than of our being driven to despair. There is far more danger ofyour looking on the season of youth, of our looking on to old age; youtrusting to the second freshness and tenderness of the first, --we to thecalmness and necessary reflection of the last. There is far more dangerof our thus hardening ourselves beyond recall; there is not only thedanger, but there is the sin, the greatest sin, I suppose, of which thehuman mind is capable, that of deliberately choosing evil for thepresent rather than good, calculating that, by and by, we shall choosegood rather than evil. I believe, that it is impossible to conceive ofany state of mind more sinful than one which should so feel and sochoose; and this is the state which we incur, and which we persist inwhenever we put off the thought of repentance. Now, then, it onlyremains, that we apply this each to ourselves; I say all of us apply it, the young and the old alike; for there is not one here so young as notto have cause to apply it; there is not one of us who would not, I amsure, be a different person from what he now is, if he were to askhimself steadily every day, Have I been and am I receiving the HolyGhost since I believed?

LECTURE XXVII. 

 * * * * *

TRINITY SUNDAY. 

 * * * * *

JOHN iii. 9. 

_How can these things be_?

This is the second question put by Nicodemus to our Lord with regard tothe truths which Jesus was declaring to him. The first was, "How can aman be born when he is old?" which was said upon our Lord's telling himthat, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "Now, it will be observed, that these two questions are treated by ourLord in a different manner: to the first he, in fact, gives an answer;that is, he removes by his answer that difficulty in Nicodemus's mindwhich led to the question; but to the second he gives no answer, andleaves Nicodemus--and with Nicodemus, us all also--exactly in the sameignorance as he found him at the beginning. 

Now, is there any difference in the nature of these two questions, whichled our Lord to treat them so differently? We might suppose beforehandthat there would be; and when we come to examine them, so we shall findit. The difficulty in the first question rendered true faith impossible, and, therefore, our Lord removed it; the difficulty in the secondquestion did not properly interfere with faith at all, but might, through man's fault, be a temptation to him to refuse to believe. Andas this, like other temptations, must be overcome by us, and not takenaway from our path before we encounter it, so our Lord did not thinkproper to remove it or to lessen it. 

We must now unfold this difference more clearly. When Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, "Nicodemus could not possibly believe what our Lord said, because he didnot understand his meaning. He did not know what he meant by "a man'sbeing born again, " and, therefore, he could not believe, as he did notknow what he was to believe. Words which we do not understand, are likewords spoken in an unknown language; we can neither believe them nordisbelieve them, because we do not know what they say. For instance, Irepeat these words, [Greek: tous pantas haemas phanerothaenai deiemprosaen tou baematos tou Christou. ] Now, if I were to ask, Do youbelieve these words? is it not manifest that all of you who know Greekenough, to understand them may also believe them; but of those who donot know Greek, not a single person can yet believe them? They are asyet words spoken as to the air. But when I add, that these words mean, "We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;" now we can allbelieve them because we can all understand them. 

It is, then, perfectly impossible for any man to believe a statementexcept in proportion as he understands its meaning. And, therefore, ourLord explained what he meant to Nicodemus, and told him that, by beingborn again, he did not mean the natural birth of the body; but a birthcaused by the Spirit, and therefore itself a birth of a spirit: for, asthat which is born from a body is itself also a body, so that which isborn of a spirit is itself also a spirit. So that Christ's words now areseen to have this meaning, --No man can enter into the kingdom of Godexcept God's Spirit creates in him a spirit or mind like unto himself, and like unto Christ, and like unto the Father. Nicodemus, then, couldnow understand what was meant, and might have believed it. But he asksrather another question, "How can these things be?" How can God's Spiritcreate within me a spirit like himself, while I continue a man asbefore? Many persons since have asked similar questions; but to none ofthem is an answer given. How God's Spirit works within us I cannot tell;but if we take the appointed means of procuring his aid, we shall surelyfind that he has worked and does work in us to life eternal. 

We must, then, in order to believe, understand what it is that is toldus; but it is by no means necessary that we should understand how it isto happen. It is not necessary, and in a thousand instances we do notknow. "If we take poison, we shall die:" there is a statement which wecan understand, and therefore believe. But do we understand how it isthat poison kills us? Does every one here know how poisons act upon thehuman frame, and what is the different operation of differentpoisons, --how laudanum kills, for instance, and how arsenic? Surelythere are very few of us, at most, who do understand this: and yet wouldit not be exceedingly unreasonable to refuse to believe that poison willkill us, because we do not understand the manner _how_?

Thus far, I think, the question is perfectly plain, so soon as it isonce laid before us. But the real point of perplexity is to be found astep further. In almost all propositions there is something about theterms which we do understand, and something which we do not. Forinstance, let me say these few words:--"A frigate was lost amidst thebreakers. " These words would be understood in a certain degree, by allwho hear me: and so far as all understand them, all can believe them. All would understand that a ship had sunk in the water, or been dashedto pieces; that it would be useful no more for the purposes for which ithad been made. But what is meant by the words "frigate" and "breakers"all would not understand, and many would understand very differently:that is to say, those who had happened to have known most about the seaand sea affairs would understand most about them, while those who knewless would understand less; but probably none of us would understandtheir meaning so fully, or would have so distinct and lively an image ofthe things, as would be enjoyed by an actual seaman; and even amongstseamen themselves, there would again be different degrees ofunderstanding, according to their different degrees of experience, orknowledge of ships, or powers of mind. 

I have taken the instance at random, and any other proposition mighthave served my purpose as well. But men do not speak to one another atrandom; when they say anything to their neighbour, they mean it toproduce on his mind a certain effect. Suppose that we were living nearthe sea-coast, and any one were suddenly to come in, and to utter thewords which I have taken as my example: should we not know that what theman meant by these words was, that there was a danger at hand for whichour help was needed? It matters not that we have no distinct ideas ofthe terms "frigate" or "breakers;" we understand enough for our beliefand practice, and we should hasten to the sea-shore accordingly. Orsuppose that the same words were told us of a frigate in which we hadsome near relation: should we not see at once that what we were meant tounderstand and to believe in the words was, that we had lost a relation?That is the truth with which we are concerned; and this we canunderstand and feel, although we may be able to understand nothing moreof the words in which that truth is conveyed to us. Now, in like manner, in whatever God says to us there is a purpose: it is intended to produceon our minds a certain impression, and so far it must be understood. Butwhen God speaks to us of heavenly things, the terms employed can only beunderstood in part, and so far as God's purpose with regard to our mindsreaches; but there must be a great deal in them which we can no moreunderstand than one who had never seen a ship, or a picture of one, could understand the word "frigate. " Our business is to consider whatimpression or what actions the words are intended to produce in us. Upto this point we can and must understand them: beyond this they may bewholly above the reach of our faculties, and we can form of them noideas at all. 

It is clear that this will be the case most especially whenever Godreveals to us anything concerning himself. Take these few words, forexample, "God is a spirit;" take them as a mere abstract truth, and howlittle can we understand about them! Who will dare to say that heunderstands all that is contained in the words "God" and "spirit?" Wemight weary ourselves for ever in attempting so to search out either. But God said these words to us: and the point is, What impression did hemean them to have upon us? how far can we understand them? This he hasnot by any means left doubtful, for it follows immediately, "They whoworship him should worship Him in spirit and in truth. " For this end thewords were spoken, and thus far they are clear to us. God lives not onMount Gerizim or at Jerusalem: but in every place he hears the prayersof the sincere and contrite heart, in no place will he regard theofferings of the proud and evil. 

Or again, "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all who believe in him should not perish, but haveeternal life. " Here are words in themselves, as abstract truths, perfectly overwhelming; "God, " "God's only-begotten Son, " "Eternity. "Who shall understand these things, when it is said, that "none knoweththe Son, save the Father; that none knoweth the Father, save the Son?"But did God tell us the words for nothing? can we understand nothingfrom them? believe nothing? feel nothing? Nay, they were spoken that wemight both understand, and believe, and feel. How must He love us, whogives for us his only-begotten Son! how surely may we believe in Him whois an only-begotten Son to his Father, --so equal in nature, so entire inunion!--What must that happiness be, which reaches beyond our powers ofcounting! Would we go further?--then the veil is drawn before us; othertruths there are, no doubt, contained in the words; truths which theangels might desire to look into; truths which even they may be unableto understand. But these are the secret things which belong unto ourGod; the things which are revealed they are what belong to us and to ourchildren, that we may understand, and believe, and do them. 

Again, "the Comforter, whom Christ will send unto us from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shalltestify of Christ. " What words are here! "The Spirit of Truth, " "theSpirit proceeding from the Father;" the Spirit "whom Christ will send, "and "send from the Father. " Can any created being understand, to thefull, such "heavenly things" as these? But would Christ have uttered tohis disciples mere unintelligible words, which could tell them nothing, and excite in them no feeling but mere wonder? Not so; but the wordstold them that Christ was not to be lost to them after he had left themon earth; that every gift of God was his: that even that Spirit of God, in which is contained all the fulness of the Godhead, is the Spirit ofChrist also; that that mighty power which should work in them soabundantly, was of no other or lower origin than God himself; asentirely God, as the spirit of man is man. But can we thereforeunderstand the Spirit of God, or conceive of him? How should we, when wecannot understand our own? This, and this only, we understand andbelieve, that without him our spirits cannot be quickened; that unlesswe pray daily for his aid, and listen to his calls within us, our spiritwill never be created after his image, and we cannot enter into thekingdom of God. 

It is thus, and thus only, that the revelations of God's word are beyondour understandings: that in them, beings and things are spoken of, which, taken generally, and in themselves, we should in vain endeavourto comprehend. But what God means us to know, or feel, or do, respectingthem, that we can understand; and beyond this we have no concern. It is, in fact, a contradiction to speak of revealing what is unintelligible;for so far as it is a revealed truth it is intelligible; so far as it isunintelligible, it is not revealed. But though a thing revealed must beintelligible in itself, yet it by no means follows that we canunderstand _how_ it happens. When we are told that the dead shall riseagain, we can understand quite well what is meant; that we beings whofeel happiness and misery, shall feel them again, either the one or theother, after we seemingly have done with them for ever in the grave. But"How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?" arequestions to which, whether asked scoffingly or sincerely, we can giveno answers; here our understanding fails, and here the truth is notrevealed to us. 

How, then, has Christianity no mysteries? In one sense, blessed be Godfor it, it has many. Using mysteries in St. Paul's sense of greatrevelations of things which were and must be unknown to all, except Godhad revealed them: then, indeed, they are many; the pillar and ground oftruth, great without controversy, and full of salvation. But takemysteries in our more common sense of the word, --as things which arerevealed to none, and can be understood by none, --then it is true thatChristianity leaves many such in existence; that many such she has doneaway; that none has she created. She leaves many mysteries with respectto God, and with respect to ourselves; God is still incomprehensible;life and death have many things in them beyond our questioning; we maystill look around us, above us, and within us, and wonder, and beignorant. But if she still leaves the veil drawn over much in heaven andin earth, yet from how much has she removed it! Life and death are stillin many respects dark; but she has brought to light immortality. God isstill in himself incomprehensible; but all his glory, and all hisperfections, are revealed to us in his only-begotten Son Christ Jesus. God's Spirit who can search out in his own proper essence? yetChristianity has taught us how we may have him to dwell with us forever, and taste the fulness of his blessings. Yea, thanks be to God forthe great Christian mystery which we this day celebrate; that he hasrevealed himself to us as our Saviour and our Comforter; that he hasrevealed to us his infinite love, in that he has given us hisonly-begotten Son to die for us, and his own Eternal Spirit to make ourhearts his temple. 

LECTURE XXVIII. 

 * * * * *

EXODUS iii. 6. 

_And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God_. 

LUKE xxiii. 30. 

_Then shall they begin to say to the mountains. Fall on us; and to thehills, Cover us_. 

These two passages occur, the one in the first lesson of this morning'sservice, the other in the second. One or other of them must have been, or must be, the case of you, of me, of every soul of man that lives orhas lived since the world began. There must be a time in the existenceof every human being when he will fear God. But the great, the infinitedifference is, whether we fear him at the beginning of our relations tohim, or at the end. 

The fear of Moses was felt at the beginning of his knowledge of God. When God revealed himself to him at the bush, it was, so far as we aretold, the first time that Moses learnt to know him. The fear of thosewho say to the mountains, "Fall on us, " is felt at the very end of theirknowledge of God; for to those who are punished with everlastingdestruction from the presence of the Lord, God is not. So that the twocases in the text are exact instances of the difference of which Ispoke, in the most extreme degree. Moses, the greatest of the prophets, fears God at first; those who are cast into hell, fear him at last. 

The appearance of God, as described in this passage of Scripture, is animage also of his dealings with us at the beginning of our course, whenwe fear him with a saving fear. "The bush burned with fire, but the bushwas not consumed. " God shows his terrors, but he does not, as yet, destroy with them. It is the very opposite to this at last, for then heis expressly said to be a consuming fire. 

Moses turned aside to see this great sight, why the bush was not burnt. That sight is the very same which the world has been offering for somany hundreds of years: God's terrors are around it, but, as yet, it isnot consumed, because he wills that we should fear him before it istoo late. 

There is, indeed, this great difference;--that the signs of God'spresence do not now force themselves upon our eyes; so that we may, ifwe choose, walk on our own way, without turning aside to see and observethem. And thus we do not see God, and do not, therefore, hide our facesfor fear of him, but go on, and feel no fear, till the time when wecannot help seeing him. And it may be, that this time will never cometill our life, and with it our space of trial, is gone for ever. 

Here, then, is our state, that God will manifest himself no more to usin such a way as that we cannot help seeing him. The burning bush willbe no more given us as a sign; Christ will no more manifest himself untothe world. And yet, unless we do see him, unless we learn to fear himwhile he is yet an unconsuming fire, unless we know that he is near, andthat the place whereon we stand is holy ground, we shall most certainlysee him when he will be a consuming fire, and when we shall join incrying to the mountains, to fall on us, and to the hills, to cover us. 

Every person who thinks at all, must, I am sure, be satisfied, that ourgreat want, the great need of our condition, is this one thing--torealize to ourselves the presence of God. It is a want not at allpeculiar to the young. Thoughtfulness, in one sense, is indeed likely tocome with advancing years: we are more apt to think at forty than atfifteen; but it by no means follows that we are more apt to think aboutGod. In this matter we are nearly at a level at all times of our life:it is with all of us our one great want, to bring the idea of God, witha living and abiding power, home to our minds. 

This is illustrated by a wish ascribed to a great and good man--Johnson, and which has been noticed with a sneer by unbelievers, a wish that hemight see a spirit from the other world, to testify to him of the truthof the resurrection. This has been sneered at, as if it were aconfession of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence which weactually possess: but, in truth, it is a confession only of the weaknesswhich clings to us all, that things unseen, which our reason onlyassures us to be real, are continually overpowered by things affectingour senses; and, therefore, it was a natural wish that sight might, in amanner, come to the aid of reason; that the eye might see, and the earmight hear, a form and words which belonged to another world. And thiswish might arise (I do not say wisely, or that his deliberate judgmentwould sanction it, but it might arise) in the breast of a good man, andone who would be willing to lay down his life in proof of his belief inChrist's promises. It might arise, not because he felt any doubt, whenhis mind turned calmly to the subject; not because he was hesitatingwhat should be the main principle of his life; but because hisexperience had told him, that there are many times in the life of manwhen the mind does not fully exert itself; when habit and impressionsrule us, in a manner, in its stead. And when so many of our impressionsmust be earthly, and as our impressions colour our habits, is it notnatural (I do not say wise, but is it not natural) to desire some oneforcible unearthly impression, which might, on the other side, colourour habits, and so influence us at those times when the mind, almost bythe necessity of our condition, cannot directly interpose its owndeliberate decision as our authority?

No doubt the wish to which I have been alluding is not one which ourreason would sanction; but it expresses in a very lively and strikingmanner a want which is most true and real, although it proposes animpossible remedy. But the question cannot but occur to us, Can it bethat our heavenly Father, who knows whereof we are made, should haveintended us to live wholly by faith in this world? That is, Can it havebeen his will that all visible signs of himself should be withdrawn fromus; and that we should be left only with the record and the evidence ofhis mighty works done in our behalf in past times; and with that otherevidence of his wisdom and power which is afforded by the wonders ofhis creation?

We look into the Scriptures and we learn that such was not his will. Wewere to live by faith, indeed, with, respect to the unseen world, therethe sign given was to be for ever only the sign of Christ'sresurrection. But yet it was not designed that the evidence of Christ'shaving redeemed us should be sought for only in the records of the past;he purposed that there should be a living record, a record that mightspeak to our senses as well as to our reason; that should continuallypresent us with impressions of the reality of Christ's salvation; and somight work upon the habits of our life, as insensibly as the air webreathe. This living witness, which should last till Christ came again, was to be no other than his own body instinct with his own Spirit--hispeople, the temple of the Holy Ghost, his holy universal Church. 

If we consider for a moment, this would entirely meet the want of whichI have been speaking. It is possible, certainly, to look upon the faceof nature without being reminded of God; yet it is surely true, that inthe outward creation, in the order of the seasons, the laws of theheavenly bodies, the wonderful wisdom and goodness displayed in theconstitution of every living thing in its order, there is a tendency atleast to impress us with, the thought of God, if nothing else obstructedit. But there is a constant obstruction in the state of man. Looking atmen, hearing them, considering them, it is not only possible not to bereminded of God; but their very tendency is to exclude him from ourminds, because the moral workmanship which is so predominant in them hasassuredly not had God for its author. We all in our dealings with oneanother, lead each other away from God. We present to each other's viewwhat seems to be a complete world of our own, in which God is not. Wesee a beginning, a middle, and an end; we see faculties for acquiringknowledge, and for receiving enjoyment; and earth furnishes knowledge tothe one and enjoyment to the other. We see desires, and we see theobjects to which they are limited; we see that death removes men fromall these objects, and consistently with this, we observe, that death isgenerally regarded as the greatest of all evils. Man's witness, then, asfar as it goes, is against the reality of God and of eternity. His life, his language, his desires, his understanding appear, when we look overthe world, to refer to no being higher than himself, to no other stateof things than that of which sight testifies. 

Now, Christ's Church, the living temple of the Holy Ghost, puts in theplace of this natural and corrupt man, whose witness is against God, another sort of man, redeemed and regenerate, whose whole being breathesa perpetual witness of God. Consider, again, what we should see in sucha Church. We should see a beginning, a middle, but the end is not yetvisible; we should see, besides the faculties for knowledge andenjoyment which were receiving their gratification daily, otherfaculties of both kinds, whose gratification was as yet withheld; weshould see desires not limited to any object now visible or attainable. We should see death looked to as the gate by which these hithertounobtained objects were to be sought for; and we should hear it spokenof, not as the greatest of evils, but as an event solemn, indeed, andpainful to nature, but full of blessing and of happiness. We should seelove, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; a constitution of nature as manifestly proclaiming itsauthor to be the God of all holiness and loving-kindness, as thewonderful structure of our eyes or hands declares them to be the work ofthe God of all wisdom and power. We should thus see in all ourfellow-men, not only as much, but far more than in the constitution ofthe lower animals, or of the plants, or of the heavenly bodies, awitness of God and of eternity. Their whole lives would be a witness;their whole conversation would be a witness; their outward and morepeculiar acts of worship would then bear their part in harmony with allthe rest. Every day would the voices of the Church be heard in itsservices of prayer and thanksgiving; every day would its members renewtheir pledges of faithfulness to Christ, and to one another, uponpartaking together the memorials of his sacrifice. 

What could we desire more than such a living witness as this? What signin the sky, what momentary appearance of a spirit from the unseen world, could so impress us with the reality of God, as this daily worshippingin his living temple; this daily sight, of more than the Shechinah ofold, even of his most Holy Spirit, diffusing on every side light andblessing? And what is now become of this witness? can names, and forms, and ordinances, supply its place? can our unfrequent worship, our mostseldom communion, impress on us an image of men living altogether in thepresence of God, and in communion with Christ? But before we dwell onthis, we may, while considering the design of the true Church of Christ, well understand how such excellent things should be spoken of it, andhow it should have been introduced into the Creed itself, followingimmediately after the mention of the Holy Ghost. That holy universalChurch was to be the abiding witness of Christ's love and of Christ'spromises; not in its outward forms only, for they by themselves are nota living witness; they cannot meet our want--to have God and heavenlythings made real to us; but in its whole spirit, by which renewed manwas to bear as visibly the image of God, as corrupted man had lost it. This was the sure sign that Christ had appointed to abide until hiscoming again; this sign, as striking as the burning bush, would compelus to observe; would make us sure that the place whereon we stand isholy ground. 

Then follows the question: With this sign lost in its most essentialpoints, how can we supply its place? and how can we best avail ourselvesof those parts of it which still remain? and how can we each endeavourto build up a partial and most imperfect imitation of it, which mayyet, in some sort, serve to supply our great want, and remind us dailyof God? This opens a wide field for thought, to those who are willing tofollow it; but much of it belongs to other occasions rather than this:the practical part of it, --the means of most imperfectly supplying thewant of God's own appointed sign, a true and living universal Church, shall be the subject of my next Lecture. 

LECTURE XXIX. 

 * * * * *

PSALM cxxxvii. 4. 

_How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land_?

This was said by the exiles of Jerusalem, when they were in the land oftheir captivity in Babylon. There is no reason to suppose that theircondition was one of bondage, as it had been in Egypt: the nationsremoved by conquest, under the Persian kings, from their own country toanother land, were no otherwise ill-treated; they had new homes giventhem in which they lived unmolested; only they were torn away from theirown land, and were as sojourners in a land of strangers. But thepeculiar evil of this state was, that they were torn away from theproper seat of their worship. The Jew in Babylon might have his ownhome, and his own land to cultivate, as he had in Judæa; but nothingcould replace to him the loss of the temple at Jerusalem: there alonecould the morning and evening sacrifices be offered; there alone couldthe sin-offering for the people be duly made. Banished from the temple, therefore, he was deprived also of the most solemn part of his religion;he was, as it were, exiled from God; and the worship of God, as it wasnow left to him, --that is, the offering up of prayers and praises, --wasalmost painful to him, as it reminded him so forcibly of his changedcondition. 

Such also, in some respects, was to be the state of the ChristianChurch after our Lord's ascension. The only acceptable sacrifice was nowthat of their great High Priest interceding for them in the presence ofthe Father: heaven was their temple, and they were far removed from itupon earth: they, too, like the Jews in Babylon, were a little societyby themselves living in the midst of strangers. "Our citizenship, " saysSt. Paul to the Philippians, "is in heaven:" here they were notcitizens, but sojourners. Why, then, should not the early Christianshave joined altogether in the feeling of the Jews at Babylon? why shouldnot they, too, have felt and said, "How can we sing the Lord's song in astrange land?"

The answer is contained in what I said last Sunday; because Christ hadnot left them comfortless or forsaken, but was come again to them by hisHoly Spirit; because God was dwelling in the midst of them; because theywere not exiles from the temple of God, but were themselves become God'stemple; because through the virtue of the one offering for sin oncemade, but for ever presented before God by their High Priest in heaven, they, in God's temple on earth, were presenting also their daily andacceptable sacrifice, the sacrifice of themselves; because also, thoughas yet they were a small society in a land of strangers, yet the stoneformed without hands was to become a mighty mountain, and cover thewhole earth: what was now the land of strangers was to become theirs;the whole earth should be full of the knowledge of the Lord; thekingdoms of the world were to become his kingdom; and thus earth, redeemed from the curse of sin, was again to be so blessed that God'sservants living upon it should find it no place of exile. 

But if this, in its reality, does not now exist; if, although God'stemple be on earth, the appointed sacrifice in it is not offered, theliving sacrifice of ourselves; if the society has, by spreading, becomeweak, and the kingdoms of the earth are Christ's kingdoms in name alone;are we, then, come back once more to the condition of the Jews inBabylon? are we exiles from God, living amongst strangers? and must we, too, say, with the prophet, "How can we sing the Lord's song in astrange land?"

This was the question which I proposed to answer: What can we do to makeour condition unlike that of exiles from God: to restore that true signof his presence amongst us, the living fire of his Holy Spirit pervadingevery part of his temple? I mean, what can we do as individuals? for thequestion in any other sense is not to be asked or answered here. But we, each of us, must have felt, at some time or other, our distance fromGod. Put the idea in what form or what words we will, we must--every oneof us who has ever thought seriously at all--we must regret that thereis not a stronger and more abiding influence over us, to keep us fromevil, and to turn us to good. 

Now, the vestiges of Christ's church left among us are chiefly these:our prayers together, whether in our families or in this place; ourreading of the Scriptures together; our communion, rare as it is, in thememorials of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour. These are thevestiges of that which was designed to be with us always, and in everypart of our lives, the holy temple of God, his living church; but whichnow presents itself to us only at particular times, and places, andactions; in our worship and in our joint reading of the Scriptures, andin our communion. 

It will be understood at once why I have not spoken here of prayer andreading the Scriptures by ourselves alone. Most necessary as these areto us, yet they do not belong to the helps ministered to us by thechurch; they belong to us each as individuals, and in these respects wemust be in the same state everywhere: these were enjoyed by the Jewseven in their exile in Babylon. But the church acts upon us through oneanother, and therefore the vestiges of the church can only be sought forin what we do, not alone, but together. I, therefore, noticed only thatprayer, and that reading of the Scriptures, in which many of us tookpart in common. 

Such common prayer takes place amongst us every morning and evening, aswell as on Sundays within these walls. Whenever we meet on thoseoccasions, we meet as Christ's church. Now, conceive how the effect ofsuch meeting depends on the conduct of each of us. It is not necessaryto notice behaviour openly profane and disorderly: this does not occuramongst us. We see, however, that if it did occur in any meeting for thepurposes of religious worship, such a meeting would do us harm ratherthan good: its witness to us would not be in favour of God, but againsthim. But take another case: when we are assembled for prayers, supposeour behaviour, without being disorderly, was yet so manifestlyindifferent as to be really indecent; that is, suppose every countenanceshowed such manifest signs of weariness, and impatience, and want ofinterest in what was going forward, that it was evident there was nogeneral sympathy with any feeling of devotion. Would not the effect herealso be injurious? would not such a meeting also shock and check ourapproaches towards God? would it not rather convince us that God wasreally far distant from us, instead of showing that he was in themidst of us?

Ascend one step higher. Our behaviour is neither disorderly, normanifestly indifferent: it is decent, serious, respectful. What is theeffect in this case? Not absolutely unfavourable certainly; but yet farfrom being much help towards good. We bear our witness that we areengaged in a matter that should be treated with reverence: this is veryright; but do we more than this? Do we show that we are engaged in amatter that commands our interest also, as well as our respect? If not, our witness is not the witness of Christ's church: it does not go todeclare that God is in us of a truth. 

Let us go on one step more. We meet together to pray: we are orderly, weare quiet, we are serious; but the countenance shows that we aresomething more than these. There is on it the expression, never to bemistaken, of real interest. Remember I am speaking of meetings forprayer, where the words are perfectly familiar to us, and where theinterest therefore cannot be the mere interest of novelty. Say, then, that our countenances express interest: I do not mean strong and excitedfeeling; but interest, which may be very real yet very quiet also. Welook as if we thought of what we were engaged in, of what we areourselves, and of what God is to us. We are joined in one common feelingof thankfulness to him for mercies past, of wishing for his help andlove for the time to come. Now, think what would be the effect of such ameeting. Would it not be, clearly, positively good! Would not everyindividual's earnestness be confirmed by the manifest earnestness ofothers? Would not his own sense of God's reality be rendered stronger, by seeing that others felt it just as he did? Then, here would be thechurch of God rendering her appointed witness: she would be giving hersure sign that God is not far from any one of us. 

Now, then, observe what we may lose or gain by our different behaviour, whenever we meet together in prayer; what we lose, nay, what positivemischief we do, by any visible impatience or indifference; what weshould gain by really joining in our hearts in the meaning of what wasuttered. It is a solemn thing for the consciences of us all; but surelyit must be true, that, whenever we are careless or indifferent in ourpublic prayers, we are actually injuring our neighbours, and are, so faras in us lies, destroying the witness which the church of Christ shouldrender to the truth of God her Saviour. 

I do not know that there is anything more impressive than the sight of acongregation evidently in earnest in the service in which they areengaged. We then feel how different is our own lonely prayer from theunited voice of many hearts; each cheering, strengthening, enkindlingthe other. We then consider one another to provoke unto love and goodworks. How different are the feelings with which we regard a number ofpersons met for any common purpose, and the same persons engagedtogether in serious prayer or praise! Then Christ seems to appear to usin each of them; we are all one in him. How little do all earthlyunkindnesses, dislikes, prejudices, become in our eyes, when the realbond of our common faith is discerned clearly! There is indeed neitherGreek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all. And to look at ourbrethren, once or twice in every day, with these Christian eyes, wouldit not also, by degrees, impress us at other times, and begin to formsomething of our habitual temper and regard towards them?

Thus much of our meetings for prayer. One word only on those in which wemeet to read the Scriptures. Here I know, that difference of age, andour peculiar relations to each other, make us very apt to lose thereligious character of our readings of the Scriptures, and to regardthem merely as lessons. No doubt, the object here is instruction; it isnot so much in itself a religious exercise, as a means to enable you toperform religious exercises with understanding and sincerity. Stillthere is a peculiar character attached even to lessons, when they aretaken out of the Scriptures: and the duty of attention and interest inthe work becomes even stronger than under other circumstances. But withthose of a more advanced age, I think there is more than this; I thinkit must be our own fault, if, whilst engaged together in reading theScriptures, which we only read because we are Christians, we do not feelthat there also we are employed on a duty belonging to the Churchof Christ. 

Lastly, there is our joint communion in the bread, and in the cup, ofthe Lord's Supper. Here there is seriousness; here there is always, Itrust and believe, something of real interest; and, therefore, we never, I think, meet together at the Lord's table, without feeling a trueeffect of Christ's gifts to and in his Church; we are strengthened andbrought nearer to one another, and to him. But this most precious pledgeof Christ's Church we too often forfeit for ourselves. That we have lostso much of the help which the Church was designed to give, is not ourfault individually; but it is our fault that we neglect this means ofstrength, so great in bearing witness to Christ, and in kindling lovetowards one another. What can be said of us, if, with so many helpslost, we throw away that which still remains? if, of the great treasurewhich the Church yet keeps, we are wilfully ignorant? How much goodmight we do, both to ourselves and to each other, by joining in thatcommunion! How surely should we be strengthened in all that is good, andhave a help from each other, through his Spirit working in us all, tostruggle against our evil!

LECTURE XXX. 

 * * * * *

1 CORINTHIANS xi. 26. 

_For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show theLord's death till he come_. 

When I spoke last Sunday of the benefits yet to be derived from Christ'sChurch, I spoke of them, as being, for the most part, three innumber--our communion in prayer, our communion in reading theScriptures, and our communion in the Lord's Supper; and, after havingspoken of the first two of these, I proposed to leave the third for ourconsideration to-day. 

The words of the text are enough to show how closely this subject isconnected with that event which we celebrate to-day[13]: "As often as yeeat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till hecome. " The communion, then, with one another in the Lord's Supper isdoing that which this day was also designed to do; it is showing forth, or declaring the Lord's death; it is declaring, in the face of all theworld, that we partake of the Lord's Supper because we believe thatChrist our Passover was sacrificed for us. 

[Footnote 13: Good Friday. ]

God might, no doubt, if it had so pleased him, have made all spiritualblessing come to us immediately from himself. Without ascending anyhigher with the idea, it is plain that Christianity might have been madea thing wholly between each individual man and Christ; all our worshipmight have been the secret worship of our own hearts; and in eating thebread, and drinking the cup, to show forth the Lord's death, each one ofus might have done this singly, holding communion with Christ alone. Imean, that it is quite conceivable that we should have had Christianity, and a great number of Christians spread all over the world, but yet noChristian Church. But, although this is conceivable, and, in fact, ispractically the case in some particular instances where individualChristians happen to be quite cut off from all other Christians, --as hasbeen known sometimes in foreign and remote countries; and although, through various evil causes, it has become, in many respects, too muchthe case with us all; for our religion is with all of us, I am inclinedto think, too much a matter between God and ourselves alone; yet stillit is not the design of Christ that it should be so: his people were notonly to be good men, redeemed from sin and death and brought to know andlove the truth, in which relation Christianity would appear like adivine philosophy only, working not only upon individuals, but throughtheir individual minds, and as individuals; but they were to be theChristian Church, helping one another in things pertaining to God, andmaking their mutual brotherhood to one another an essential part of whatare called peculiarly their acts of religion. So that the Church ofEngland seems to have well borne in mind this character of Christianity, namely, that it presents us not each, but all together, before God; andtherefore it is ordered that even in very small parishes, where "thereare not more than twenty persons in the parish of discretion to receivethe communion, yet there shall be no communion, except four, or three atthe least, out of these twenty communicate together with the priest. "Nay, even in the Communion of the Sick, under circumstances which seemto make religion particularly an individual matter between Christ andour own single selves; when the expected approach of death seems toseparate, in the most marked manner, according to human judgment, himwho is going hence from his brethren still in the world; even then it isordered that two other persons, at the least, shall communicate alongwith the sick man and the minister. Nor is this ever relaxed except intimes of pestilence; when it is provided, that if no other person can bepersuaded to join from their fear of infection, then, and then only uponspecial request of the diseased, the minister may alone communicate withthem. So faithfully does our Church adhere to this true Christiannotion, that at the Lord's Supper we are not to communicate with Christalone, but with him in and together with our brethren; so that I wasjustified in regarding the Holy Communion as one of those helps andblessings which we still derive from the Christian Church--from Christ'smystical body. 

It is the natural process of all false and corrupt religions, on thecontrary, to destroy this notion of Christ's Church, and to lead awayour thoughts from our brethren in matters of religion, and to fix themmerely upon God as known to us through a priest. The great evil in thisis, (if there is any one evil greater than another in a system so whollymade up of falsehood, and so leading to all wickedness; but, at anyrate, one great evil of it is, ) that whereas the greatest part of allour lives is engaged in our relations towards our brethren, that therelie most of our temptations to evil, as well as of our opportunities ofgood, if our brethren do not form an essential part of our religionsviews, it follows, and always has followed, that our behaviour andfeelings towards them are guided by views and principles not religious;and that by this fatal separation of what God has joined together, ourworship and religious services become superstitious, while our life andactions become worldly, in the bad sense of the term, low principled, and profane. 

If this is not so clear when put into a general form, it will be plainenough when I show it in that particular example which we are concernedwith here. Nowhere, I believe, is the temptation stronger to lose sightof one another in our religious exercises, and especially in ourCommunion. Our serious thoughts in turning to God, turn away almostinstinctively from our companions about us. Practically, as far as theheart is concerned, we are a great deal too apt to go to the Lord'stable each alone. But consider how much we lose by this. We arenecessarily in constant relations with one another; some of thoserelations are formal, others are trivial; we connect each other everyday with a great many thoughts, I do not say of unkindness, but yet ofthat indifferent character which is no hindrance to any unkindness whenthe temptation to it happens to arise. This must always be the case inlife; business, neighbourhood, pleasure, --the occasions of most of ourintercourse with one another, --have in them nothing solemn or softening:they have in themselves but little tendency to lead us to the love ofone another. Now, if this be so in the world, it is even more so here;your intercourse with one another is much closer and more constant thanwhat can exist in after life with any but the members of your ownfamily; and yet the various relations which this intercourse has to dowith, are even less serious and less softening than those of ordinarylife in manhood. The kindliness of feeling which is awakened in afteryears between two men, by the remembrance of having been at schooltogether, even without any particular acquaintance with each other, is avery different thing from the feeling of being at school with eachother now. I do not wonder, then, that any one of you, when he resolvesto come to the Holy Communion, should rather try to turn away histhoughts from his companions, and to think of himself alone as beingconcerned in what he is going to do. I do not wonder at it; but, then, neither do I wonder that, when the Communion is over, and thoughts ofhis companions must return, they receive little or no colour from hisreligious act so lately performed; that they are as indifferent as theywere before, as little furnishing a security against neglect, orpositive unkindness, or encouragement of others to evil. Depend upon it, unless your common life is made a part of your religion, your religionwill never sanctify your common life. 

Now consider, on the one hand, what might be the effect of going to theHoly Communion with a direct feeling that, in that Communion, we, thoughmany, were all brought together in Christ Jesus. And first, I will speakof our thoughts of those who are partakers of the Communion with us, then of those who are not. When others are gone out, and we who are tocommunicate are left alone with each other, then, if we perceive thatthere are many of us, the first natural feeling is one of joy, that weare so many; that our party, --that only true and good party to which wemay belong with all our hearts, --that our party, --that Christ's party, seems so considerable. Then there comes the thought, that we are all mettogether freely, willingly, not as a matter of form, to receive thepledges of Christ's love to us, to pledge ourselves to him in return. Ifwe are serious, those around us may be supposed to be serious too; if wewish to have help from God to lead a holier life, they surely wish thesame; if the thought of past sin is humbling us, the same shame isworking in our brethren's bosoms; if we are secretly resolving, byGod's grace, to serve him in earnest, the hearts around us are, nodoubt, resolving the same. There is the consciousness, (when and whereelse can we enjoy it?) that we are in sympathy with all present; that, coloured merely by the lesser distinctions of individual character, oneand the same current of feeling is working within us all. And, iffeeling this of our sympathy with one another, how strongly is itheightened by the thought of what Christ has done for us all! We are allloving him, because he loved us all; we are going together to celebratehis death, because he died for us all; we are resolving all to servehim, because his Holy Spirit is given to us all, and we are all broughtto drink of the same Spirit. Then let us boldly carry our thoughts alittle forward to that time, only a short hour hence, when we shallagain be meeting one another, in very different relations; even in thosecommon indifferent relations of ordinary life which are connected solittle with Christ. Is it impossible to think, that, although we shallmeet without these walls in very different circumstances, yet that wehave seen each other pledging ourselves to serve Christ together? if therecollection of this lives in us, why should it not live in ourneighbour? If we are labouring to keep alive our good resolutions madeat Christ's table, why should we think that others have forgotten them?We do not talk of them openly, yet still they exist within us. May notour neighbour's silence also conceal within his breast the same goodpurposes? At any rate, we may and ought to regard him as ranged on ourside in the great struggle of life; and if outward circumstances do notso bring us together as to allow of our openly declaring our sympathy, yet we may presume that it still exists; and this consciousness maycommunicate to the ordinary relations of life that very softness whichthey need, in order to make them Christian. 

Again, with regard to those who go out, and do not approach to theLord's table. With some it is owing to their youth; with others to amistaken notion of their youth; with others to some less excusablereason, perhaps, but yet to such as cannot yet exclude kindness andhope. But having once felt what it is to be only with those who are metreally as Christians, our sense of what it is to want this feeling isproportionably raised. Is it sad to us to think that our neighbour doesnot look upon us as fellow Christians? is it something cold to feel thathe regards us only in those common worldly relations which leave men inheart so far asunder? Then let us take heed that we do not ourselvesfeel so towards him. We have learnt to judge more truly, to feel morejustly, of our relations to every one who bears Christ's name: if weforget this, we have no excuse; for we have been at Christ's table, andhave been taught what Christians are to one another. And let ourneighbour be ever so careless, yet we know that Christ cares for him;that his Spirit has not yet forsaken him, but is still striving withhim. And if God vouchsafes so much to him, how can we look upon him asthough he were no way connected with us? how can we be as careless ofhis welfare, as apt either to annoy him, or to lead him into evil, or totake no pains to rescue him from it, as if he were no more to us thanthe accidental inhabitant of the same place, who was going on his way aswe may be on ours, neither having any concern with the other?

And, now, is it nothing to learn so to feel towards those around us; tohave thus gained what will add kindness and interest to all ourrelations with others; and, in the case of many, will give an abidingsense of the truest sympathy, and consequently greater confidence andencouragement to ourselves? Be sure that this is not to profane theLord's Supper, but to use it according to Christ's own ordinance. Forthough the thoughts of which I have been speaking, have, in one sense, man and not God for their object, yet as they do not begin in man but inChrist, and in his love to us all, so neither do they, properlyspeaking, rest in man as such, but convert him, as it were, into animage of Christ: so that their end, as well as their beginning, is withHim. I do earnestly desire that you would come to Christ's table, inorder to learn a Christian's feelings towards one another. This is whatyou want every day; and the absence of which leads to more and worsefaults than, perhaps, any other single cause. But, then, this Christianfeeling towards one another, how is it to be gained but by a Christianfeeling towards Christ? and where are we to learn brotherly love in allour common dealings, but from a grateful thought of that Divine lovetowards us all which is shown forth in the sacrament of the Lord'sSupper; inasmuch as, so often as we eat that bread and drink that cup, we do show the Lord's death till He come. 

LECTURE XXXI. 

 * * * * *

LUKE i. 3, 4. 

_It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of allthings from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellentTheophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those thingswherein thou hast been instructed_. 

These words, from the preface to St. Luke's Gospel, contain in them oneor two points on which it may be of use to dwell; and not least so atthe present time, when they are more frequently brought under our noticethan was the case a few years ago. On a subject which we never, or veryrarely hear mentioned, it may be difficult to excite attention; and, asa general rule, there is little use in making the attempt. But whennames and notions are very frequently brought to our ears, and in adegree to our minds, then it becomes important that we should comprehendthe matter to which they relate clearly and correctly; and a previousinterest respecting it may be supposed to exist, which make furtherexplanation acceptable. 

St. Luke tells Theophilus that it seemed good to him to write in orderan account of our Lord's life and death, that Theophilus might know thecertainty of those things in which he had been instructed; and this, asa general rule, might well describe one great use of the Scripture toeach of us, as individual members of Christ's Church--it enables us toknow the certainty of the things in which we have been instructed. We donot, in the first instance, get our knowledge of Christ from theScriptures, --we, each of us, I mean as individuals, --but from theteaching of our parents first; then of our instructors, and from booksfitted for the instruction of children; whether it be the Catechism ofthe Church, or books written by private persons, of which we know thatthere are many. But as our minds open, and our opportunities of judgingfor ourselves increase, then the Scripture presents itself to acquaintus with the certainty of what we had heard already; to show us theoriginal and perfect truth, of which we have received impressionsbefore, but such as were not original nor perfect; to confirm andenforce all that was good and true in our early teaching; and if itshould so happen that it contained any thing of grave error mixed withtruth, then to enable us to discover and reject it. 

It is apparent, then, that the Scripture, to do this, must have anauthority distinct from, and higher than, that of our early teaching;but yet it is no less true that it comes to us individually recommended, in the first instance, by the authority of our early teaching, andreceived by us, not for its own sake, but for the sake of those who putit into our hands. What child can, by possibility, go into the evidencewhich makes it reasonable to believe the Bible, and to reject theauthority of the Koran? Our children believe the Bible for our sakes;they look at it with respect, because we tell them that it ought to berespected; they read it, and learn it, because we desire them; theyacquire a habit of veneration for it long before they could give anyother reason for venerating it than their parents' authority. Andblessed be God that they do; for, as it has been well said, if we theirparents do not endeavour to give our children habits of love and respectfor what is good and true, Satan will give them habits of love for whatis evil: for the child must receive impressions from without; and it isGod's wisdom that he should receive these impressions from his parents, who have the strongest interest in his welfare, and who have besidesthat instinctive parental love which, more surely, as well as morepurely, than any possible sense of interest, makes them earnestly desiretheir child's good. 

But when our children are old enough to understand and to inquire, do wethen content ourselves with saying that they must take our word for it;that the Bible is true because we tell them so? Where is the father whodoes not feel, first, that he himself is not fitted to be an infallibleauthority; and, secondly, that if he were, he should be thwarting theprovidence of God, who has willed not simply that we should believe withunderstanding. He gladly therefore observes the beginnings of a spiritof inquiry in his son's mind, knowing that it is not inconsistent with abelief in truth, but is a necessary step to that which alone in a mandeserves the name of belief--a belief, namely, sanctioned by reason. With what pleasure does he point out to his son the grounds of his ownfaith! how gladly does he introduce him to the critical and historicalevidence for the truth of the Scriptures, that he may complete the workwhich he had long since begun, and deliver over the faith which had beenso long nursed under the shade of parental authority, to the care of hisson's own conscience and reason!

We see clearly that our individual faith, although grounded in the firstinstance on parental authority, yet rests afterwards on wholly differentgrounds; namely, on the direct evidence in confirmation of it which ispresented to our own minds. But with regard to those who are called theFathers of the Church, it is contended sometimes that we do receive theScriptures, in the end, upon their authority: and it is argued, that iftheir authority is sufficient for so great a thing as this, it must besufficient for every thing else; that if, in short, we believe theScriptures for their sake, then we ought also to believe other thingswhich they may tell us, for their sake, even though they are not to befound in Scripture. 

In the argument there is this great fault, that it misstates thequestion at the outset. The authority of the Fathers, as they arecalled, is never to any sound mind the only reason for believing in theScriptures; I think it is by no means so much as the principle reason. It is one reason, amongst many; but not the strongest. And, in likemanner, their authority in other points, if there were other andstronger reasons which confirmed it, --as in many cases there are, --isand ought to be respected. But, because we lay a certain stress upon it, it does not follow that we should do well to make it bear the wholeweight of the building. Because we believe the Scriptures, partly on theauthority of the Fathers, as they are called, but more for otherreasons, does it follow that we should equally respect the authority ofthe Fathers when there are no other reasons in support of it, but manywhich make against it?

In truth, however, the internal evidence in favour of the authenticityand genuineness of the Scriptures is that on which the mind can restwith far greater satisfaction than on any external testimonies, howevervaluable. On one point, which might seem most to require otherevidence--the age, namely, and origin of the writings of the NewTestament--it has been wonderfully ordered that the books, generallyspeaking, are their own witness. I mean that their peculiar languageproves them to have been written by persons such as the apostles were, and such as the Christian writers immediately following them were not;persons, namely, whose original language and habits of thinking werethose of Jews, and to whom the Greek in which they wrote was, in itslanguage and associations, essentially foreign. I do not dwell on themany other points of internal evidence: it is sufficient to say thatthose who are most familar with such inquiries, and who best know howlittle any external testimony can avail in favour of a book where theinternal evidence is against it, are most satisfied that the principalwritings of the New Testament do contain abundantly in themselves, forcompetent judges, the evidence of their own genuineness andauthenticity. 

That the testimony of the early Christian writers goes along with thisevidence and confirms it, is matter indeed of sincere thankfulness;because more minds, perhaps, are able to believe on external evidencethan on internal. But of this testimony of the Christian writers it isessential to observe, that two very important points are such as doindeed affect this particular question much, but yet do not confer anyvalue on the judgment of the witness in other matters. When a very earlyChristian writer quotes a passage from the New Testament, such as wefind it now in our Bibles, it is indeed an argument, which all canunderstand, that he had before him the same Bible which we have, andthat though he lived so near to the beginning of the gospel, yet thatsome parts of the New Testament must have been written still nearer toit. This is an evidence to the age of the New Testament, valuable indeedto us, but implying in the writer who gives it no qualities which conferauthority; it merely shows that the book which he read must have existedbefore he could quote it. A second point of evidence is, when a veryearly Christian writer quotes any part of the New Testament as beingconsidered by those to whom he was writing as an authority. This, again, is a valuable piece of testimony; but neither does it imply any generalwisdom or authority in the writer who gives it: its value is derivedmerely from the age at which he lived, and not from his personalcharacter. And with regard to the general reception of the New Testamentby the Christians of his time, which, in the case supposed, he states asa fact, no doubt that the general opinion of the early Christians, where, as in this case, we can be sure that it is reported correctly, isan authority, and a great authority, in favour of the Scriptures:combined, as it is, with the still stronger internal evidence of thebooks themselves, it is irresistible. But it were too much to arguethat, therefore, it was alone sufficient, not only when destitute ofother evidence, but if opposed to it; and especially if it should happento be opposed to that very Scripture which we know they acknowledged tobe above themselves, but which we do not know that they were enabled inall cases either rightly to interpret or faithfully to follow. 

When, therefore, we are told that, as we believe the Scripturesthemselves upon tradition, so we should believe other things also, theanswer is, that we do not believe the Scriptures either entirely orprincipally, upon what is called tradition; but for their own internalevidence; and that the opinions of the early Christians, like those ofother men, may be very good in certain points, and to a certain degree, without being good in all points, and absolutely; that many a man'sjudgment would justly weigh with us, in addition to other strong reasonsin the case itself, when we should by no means follow it where we wereclear that there were strong reasons against it. This, indeed, is soobvious, that it seems almost foolish to be at the trouble of statingit; but what is so absurd in common life, that the contrary to it is amere truism, is, unfortunately, when applied to a subject with which weare not familiar, often considered as an unanswerable argument, if ithappen to suit our disposition or our prejudices. 

But, although the Scripture is to the Church, and to the individual, too, who is able to judge for himself, the only decisive authority inmatters of faith, yet we must not forget that it comes to us as it didto Theophilus, to persuade us of the certainty of things in which wehave been already instructed; not to instruct from the beginning, byitself alone, those to whom its subject is entirely strange: in otherwords, it is and ought to be the general rule, that the Church teaches, and the Scripture confirms that teaching: or, if it be in any parterroneous, reproves it. For some appear to think, that by calling theScripture the sole authority in matters of faith, we mean to exclude theChurch altogether; and to call upon every man, --nay, upon everychild, --to make out his own religion for himself from the volume of theScriptures. The explanation briefly given is this; that while theScripture alone teaches the Church, the Church teaches individuals; andthat the authority of her teaching, like that of all human teaching, whether of individuals or societies, varies justly according tocircumstances; being received, as it ought to be, almost implicitly bysome, as a parent's is by a child, and by others listened to withrespect, as that which is in the main agreeable to the truth, but stillnot considered to be, nor really claiming to be received as, infallible. But this part of the subject will require to be considered by itself onanother occasion. 

LECTURE XXXII. 

 * * * * *

LUKE i. 3, 4. 

_It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of allthings from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellentTheophilus, that than mightest know the certainty of those things inwhich thou hast been instructed_. 

I said at the conclusion of my lecture, last Sunday, that when we of theChurch of England assert that the Scripture is the sole authority inmatters of faith, we by no means mean to exclude the office of theChurch, nor to assert any thing so extravagant, as that it is the dutyof every person to sit down with the volume of the Scriptures in hishand, and to make out from that alone, without listening to any humanauthority, what is the revelation made by God to man. But I know thatmany are led to adopt notions no less extravagant of the authority ofthe Church and of tradition, --even to the full extent maintained by theChurch of Rome, --because they see no other refuge from what appears tothem, and not unreasonably, so miserable and so extreme a folly; for anextreme and a most miserable folly doubtless it would be, in any one, tothrow aside all human aid except his own; to disregard alike the wisdomof individuals, and the agreeing decisions of bodies of men; to act asif none but himself had ever loved truth, or had been able to discoverit; and as if he himself did possess both the will and the power todo so. 

This is so foolish, that I doubt whether any one ever held suchnotions, and, much more, whether be acted upon them. But is it more wiseto run from one form of error into its opposite, which, generallyspeaking, is no less foolish and extravagant? What should we say of aman who could see no middle course between never asking for advice, andalways blindly following it; between never accepting instruction uponany subject, and believing his instructors infallible? And this lastcomparison, with our particular situation here, will enable us, I think, by referring to our own daily experience, to understand the presentquestion sufficiently. The whole system of education supposes, undoubtedly, that the teacher, in those matters which he teaches, shouldbe an authority to the taught: a learner in any matter must rely on thebooks, and on the living instructors, out of which and from whom he isto learn. There are difficulties, certainly, in all learning; but we donot commonly see them increased by a disposition on the part of thelearner to question and dispute every thing that is told him. There is afeeling rather of receiving what he is told implicitly; and, by sodoing, he learns: but does it ever enter into his head that his teacheris infallible? or does any teacher of sane mind wish him to think so?And observe, now, what is the actual process: the mind of the learner isgenerally docile, trustful, respectful towards his teacher; aware, also, of his own comparative ignorance. It is certainly most right that itshould be so. But this really teachable and humble learner finds a falsespelling in one of his books; or hears his teacher, from oversight, sayone word in his explanation instead of another: does he cease to beteachable and humble, --is it really a want of childlike faith, and anindulgence of the pride of reason, if he decides that the false spellingwas an error of the press; that the word which his teacher used was amistake? Yet errors, mistakes, of how trifling a kind soever, areinconsistent with infallibility; and the perceiving that they are errorsis an exercise of our individual judgment upon our instructors. To hearsome men talk, we should think that no boy could do so without losingall humility and all teachableness; without forthwith supposing that hewas able to be his own instructor. 

I have begun on purpose with an elementary case, in which a very youngboy might perceive an error in his books, or in his instructors, without, in any degree, forfeiting his true humility. But we will now gosomewhat farther: we will take a more advanced student, such as theoldest of those among you, who are still learners, and who know thatthey have much to learn, but who, having been learners for some timepast, have also acquired some knowledge. In the books which they referto, and from which they are constantly deriving assistance, do theynever observe any errors in the printing? do they never findexplanations given, which they perceive to be imperfect, nay, which theyoften feel to be actually wrong? And, passing from books to livinginstructors, should we blame a thoughtful, attentive, and well-informedpupil, because his mind did not at once acquiesce in our interpretationof some difficult passage; because he consulted other authorities on thesubject, and was unsatisfied in his judgment; the reason of hishesitation being, that our interpretation appeared to him to give anunsatisfactory sense, or to be obtained by violating the rules oflanguage? Is he proud, rebellious, puffed up, wanting in a teachablespirit, without faith, without humility, because he so ventures to judgefor himself of what his teacher tells him? Does such a judging forhimself interfere, in the slightest degree, with the relation between usand him? Does it make him really cease to respect us? or dispose him tobelieve that he is altogether beyond the reach of our instruction? Orare we so mad as to regard our authority as wholly set at nought, because it is not allowed to be infallible? Doubtless, it would bewholly set at nought, if we had presumed to be infallible. Then it wouldnot be merely that, in some one particular point, our decision had beendoubted, but that one point would involve our authority in all; becauseit would prove, that we had set up beforehand a false claim: and he whodoes so is either foolish, or a deceiver; there is apparent a flaweither in his understanding, or in his principles, which undoubtedlydoes repel respect. 

Let me go on a step farther still. It has been my happiness to retain, in after years, my intercourse with many of those who were formerly mypupils; to know them when their minds have been matured, and theireducation, in the ordinary sense of the term, completed. Is not therelation between us altered then still more? Is it incompatible withtrue respect and regard, that they should now judge still more freely, in those very points, I mean, in which heretofore they had received myinstructions all but implicitly? that on points of scholarship andcriticism, they should entirely think for themselves? Or does thisthinking for themselve mean, that they will begin to question all theyhad ever learnt? or sit down to forget purposely all their schoolinstructions, and make out a new knowledge of the ancient languages forthemselves? Who does not know, that they whose minds are most eager todiscern truth, are the very persons who prize their early instructionmost, and confess how much they are indebted to it; and that theexercise of their judgments loads them to go on freely in the same pathin which they have walked so long, here and there it may be departingfrom it where they find a better line, but going on towards the sameobject, and generally in the same direction?

What has been the experience of my life, --the constantly observing thenatural union between sense and modesty; the perfect compatibility ofrespect for instruction with freedom of judgment; the seeing how Natureherself teaches us to proportion the implicitness of our belief to ourconsciousness of ignorance: to rise gradually and gently from a state ofpassively leaning, as it were, on the arm of another, to resting moreand more of our weight on our own limbs, and, at last, to standingalone, this has perpetually exemplified our relations, as individuals, to the Church. Taught by her, in our childhood and youth, under allcircumstances; taught by her, in the great majority of instances, through our whole lives; never, in any case, becoming so independent ofher as we do in riper years, of the individual instructor of our youth;she has an abiding claim on our respect, on our deference, on ourregard: but if it should be, that her teaching contained any thing atvariance with God's word, we should perceive it more or less clearly, according to our degrees of knowledge; we should trust or mistrust ourjudgment, according to our degree of knowledge; but in the last resort, as we suppose that even a young boy might be sure that his book was inerror, in the case of a manifest false print, so there may be things socertainly inconsistent with Scripture, that a common Christian may beable to judge of them, and to say that they are like false prints in hislesson, they are manifest errors, not to be followed, but avoided. Sofar he may be said to judge of his teacher; but not the less will herespect and listen to her authority in general, unless she has herselfmade the slightest error ruinous to her authority by claiming to be inall points, great or small, alike infallible. 

Men crave a general rule for their guidance at all times, and under allcircumstances; whereas life is a constant call upon us to consider howfar one general rule, in the particular case before us, is modified byanother, or where one rule should be applied, and where another. Toseparate humility from idolatry, conscience from presumption, is oftenan arduous task: to different persons there is a different besettingdanger; so it is under different circumstances, and at different times. Every day does the seaman, on a voyage, take his observations, to knowwhereabouts he is; he compares his position with his charts; heconsiders the direction of the wind, and the set of the current, ortide; and from all these together, he judges on which side his dangerlies, on what course he should steer, or how much sail he may venture tocarry. This is an image of our own condition: we cannot have a generalrule to tell us where we should follow others, and where we must differfrom them; to say what is modesty, and what is indolence; what is aproper deference to others, and what is a trusting in man so far, thatit becomes a want of trust in God. Only, we are sure that these arepoints which we must decide for ourselves; the human will must be free, so far as other men are concerned. If we say, that we will implicitlytrust others, then there is our decision, which no one could have madefor us, and which is our own choice as to the principle of our lives;for which choice, we each of us, and no one else in all the world, mustanswer at the judgment-seat of God. Only, in that word there is ourcomfort, that, for our conduct in so doubtful a voyage as that of life, amidst so many conflicting opinions, each courting our adherence toit, --amidst such a variety of circumstances without, and of feelingswithin, and on which, notwithstanding, our condition for all eternitymust depend, --we shall be judged, not by erring man, not by our ownfallible conscience, but by the all-wise, and all-righteous God. Withhim, after all, even in the very courts of his holy Church, we yet, inone sense, must each of us live alone. On his gracious aid, given to ourown individual souls, and determining our own individual wills, dependsthe character of our life here and for ever. Trusting to him, praying tohim, we shall then make use of all the means that his goodness hasprovided for us; we shall ask counsel of friends; we shall listen toteachers; we shall delight to be in the company of God's people, of onemind, and of one voice, with the good and wise of every generation; weshall be afraid of leaning too much to our own understanding, knowinghow it is encompassed with error; but knowing that other men areencompassed with error also, and that we, and not they, must answer forour choice before Christ's judgment, we must, in the last resort, if ourconscience and sense of truth cannot be persuaded that other men speakaccording to God's will, --we must follow our own inward convictions, though all the world were to follow the contrary. 

LECTURE XXXIII. 

 * * * * *

JOHN ix. 29. 

_We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not fromwhence he is_. 

The questions involved in the conversations recorded in this chapter, are of great practical importance. Not perhaps of immediate practicalimportance to all in this present congregation; but yet sure to be ofimportance to all hereafter, and of importance to many at this actualmoment. Nay, they are of importance to those who, from their youth, might be thought to have little to do with them, either where the mindis already anxious and inquiring beyond its years, or where it happensto be exposed to strong party influences, or that its passions arelikely to be engaged on a particular side, however little theunderstanding may be interested in the matter. In fact, in religiousknowledge, as in other things, the omissions of youth are hard to makeup in manhood; they who grow up with a very small knowledge of theScriptures, and with no understanding of any of the questions connectedwith them, can with difficulty make up for this defect in after years;they become, according to the influences to which, they may happen to besubjected, either unbelieving or fanatical. 

If we were to question the youngest boy about the language held in thischapter by the Pharisees, and by the man who had been born blind, weshould, no doubt, be answered, that what the Pharisees said, was wrong;and what the man born blind said, was right. This would be the answerwhich it would be thought proper to give; because it would be perceivedthat the Pharisees' language expressed unbelief in Christ; and that theman born blind was expressing gratitude and faith towards him. Nor, indeed, should we expect a young boy to go much farther than this; forsuch general impressions are, at his age, as much many times as can belooked for. But it is strange to observe how much this want ofunderstanding outlasts the age of boyhood; how apt men are to judgeaccording to names, and to see no farther: to say, that the language ofthe Pharisees was wrong, because they find it employed against Christ;but yet to use the very same language themselves, whilst they think thatthey are all the while speaking for Christ. 

But in this conversation between the Pharisees and the blind man, thereare, indeed, as I said, points involved of very great importance; itcontains the question as to the degree of weight to be attached tomiracles; and the question, no less grave, with what degree of tenacitywe should reject what claims to be a new truth, because it seems to beat a variance with supposed old truths to which we have been longaccustomed to cling with undoubting affection. 

The question as to the weight of miracles is contained in the sixteenthverse. Some of the Pharisees said, This man is not of God, because hekeepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinnerdo such miracles? That is to say, the first party rejected the miraclesbecause they seemed to be wrought in favour of a supposed falsedoctrine; the other accepted the doctrine, because it seemed warrantedto their belief by the miracles. 

The second question is contained in the words of the text, "We knowthat God spake to Moses; as for this fellow, we know not from whence heis. " We have been taught from our childhood, and have the beliefassociated with every good and pious thought in us, that God spake toMoses, and gave him the law as our rule of life; but as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. His works may be wonderful, his words maybe specious; but we never heard of him before, and we cannot tear up allthe holiest feelings of our nature to receive a new doctrine. We willhold to the old way in which, we were taught by our fathers to walk, andin which they walked before us. 

This last question is one which, as we well know, is continuallypresented to our minds. No one says, that the Pharisees were right, anymore than those very Pharisees thought that their fathers were right whohad killed the prophets. But as our Lord told them, that they were intruth the children in spirit of those who had killed the prophets;because, although they had been taught to condemn the outward form oftheir fathers' action, they were repeating it themselves in itsprinciples and spirit; so many of those who condemn the Pharisees arereally their exact image, repeating now against the truths of their owndays the very same arguments which the Pharisees used against the truthsof theirs. 

For the arguments of these Pharisees, both as regards miracles, and asregards the suspicion with which we should look on a doctrine opposed tothe settled opinions of our lives, have in fact, in both cases, a greatmixture of justice in them; and it is this very mixture which we mayhope beguiled them; and also beguiles those, who in our own days repeattheir language. 

For most certain it is that the Scripture itself supposes thepossibility of false miracles. The case is especially provided againstin Deuteronomy. It there says, "If there arise among you a prophet or adreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign orthe wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us goafter other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thoushalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet or that dreamer ofdreams, for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love theLord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. " Observe hownearly this comes to the language of the Pharisees, "This man is not ofGod, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. " "Here, " they might havesaid, "is the very case foreseen in the Scriptures: a prophet haswrought a sign and a wonder, which is at the same time a breach of God'scommandments. God has told us that such signs are not to be heeded, thathe does but prove us with them to see whether we love him truly: knowingthat where there is a love of him, the heart will heed no sign orwonder, how great soever, which would tempt it to think lightly of hiscommandments. " Shall we say that this is not a just interpretation ofthe passage in Deuteronomy? shall we say that this is the language ofunbelief or of sin? or, rather, shall we not confess that it is inaccordance with God's word, and holy, and faithful, and true? And yetthis most just language led those who used it to reject one of Christ'sgreatest miracles, and to refuse the salvation of the Holy One of God. Can God's truth be contrary to itself? or can truth and goodness lead sodirectly to error and to evil?

Now, then, where is the solution to be found? for some solution theremust be, unless we will either condemn a most true principle, or defenda most false conclusion. The error lies in confounding God's moral lawwith his law of ordinances; precisely the same error which led the Jewsto stone Stephen. The law had undoubtedly commanded that he whoblasphemed God should be stoned; the Jews called Stephen's speakingagainst the holy place and against the law blasphemy against God, andthey murdered God's faithful servant and Christ's blessed martyr. Evenso the law had said, Let no miracle be so great as to tempt you toforsake God: the Jews considered the forsaking the law of the Sabbath tobe a forsaking of God, and they said that Christ's miracle was a work ofSatan. There is no blasphemy into which we may not fall, no crime fromwhich we shall be safe, if we do not separate in our minds most clearlysuch laws as relate to moral and eternal duties, and such as relate tooutward or positive ordinances, even when commanded or instituted by Godhimself. It is most false to say that the fact of their being commandedsets them on a level with each other. So long as they are commanded tous, it is no doubt our duty to obey them equally: but the differencebetween them is this, that whereas the first are commanded to us and toour children for ever, and no possible evidence can be so great as topersuade us that God has repealed them; (for the utmost conceivableamount of external testimony, such as that of miracles, could only leadto madness;--the human mind might, conceivably, be overwhelmed by theconflict, but should never and could never be tempted to renounce itsvery being, and lie against its Maker;) the others, that is, thecommands to observe certain forms and ordinances, are in their natureessentially temporary and changeable: we have no right to assume thatthey will be continued, and therefore a miracle at any time might justlyrequire us to forsake them; and not only an outward miracle, but thechanged circumstances of the times may speak God's will no less clearlythan a miracle, and may absolutely make it our duty to lay aside thoseordinances, which to us hitherto, and to our fathers before us, wereindeed the commands of God. 

Now let us take the other question, --which may indeed be called aquestion as to the allowableness of resting confidently in truth alreadygained, without consenting to examine the claims of something assertingitself to be a new truth, yet which seems to interfere with the old. Isnothing within us to be safe from possible doubt, or is everything? Oris it here, as in the former case, that there are truths so tried and sosacred that it were blasphemy to question them; while there are others, often closely intermixed with these, which are not so sacred, becausethey are not eternal; which may and ought to be examined when occasionrequires; and which may be laid aside, or exchanged rather, for somehigher truth, if it shall reasonably appear that their work is done, andthat if we retain them longer they will change their character, andbecome no longer true but false. "David having served his own generationby the will of God, fell asleep, and was gathered unto his fathers, andsaw corruption; but He whom God raised again saw no corruption. " This isthe difference between positive ordinances and moral: the first servetheir appointed number of generations by the will of God, and then aregathered to their fathers, and perish; the latter are by the right handof God exalted, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. 

"We know, " said the Jews, "that God spake to Moses; but for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. " There was a time when their fathers hadheld almost the very same language to Moses: "they refused him, sayingWho made thee a ruler and a judge over us?" But now they knew that Godhad spoken to Moses, but were refusing Him who was sent unto them afterMoses. God had spoken unto Moses, it was most true: he had spoken to himand given him commandments which were to last for ever; and whichChrist, so far from undoing, was sent to confirm and to perfect; he hadspoken to him other things, which were not to last for ever, but yetwhich were not to be cast away with dishonour; but having, in thefulness of time, done their work, were then, like David, to fall asleep. All that was required of the Jews, was not to reject as blasphemy adoctrine which should distinguish between these two sorts of truths:which in no way requires to believe that God had not spoken toMoses, --which, on the contrary, maintained that he had so spoken, --butonly contended that he has also, in these last days, spoken unto us byhis Son; and that his Son, bearing the full image of Divine authority, might well be believed if he spoke of some parts of Moses's law ashaving now fulfilled their work, seeing that they were such parts onlyas, by their very nature, were not eternal: they had not been from thebeginning, and therefore they would not live on to the end. 

The practical conclusion is, that, whilst we hold fast, with anundoubting and unwavering faith, all truths which, by their very nature, are eternal, and to deny which is no other than to speak against theHoly Ghost, we should listen patiently to, and pass no harsh judgmenton, those who question other truths not necessarily eternal, while theydeclare that they are, to the best of their consciences, seeking to obeyGod and Christ. When I say, that we should listen patiently, and notpass harsh judgments upon those who question such points, I say itwithout at all meaning that we should agree with them. It would bemonstrous indeed, to suppose that old opinions are never combatedwrongly; that old institutions are never pronounced to have lived outtheir appointed time, when, in fact, they are still in their fullvigour. But the language of those who defend the doctrines and theordinances of the Church may, and often does, partake of the sin of thatof the Pharisees, even when those against whom they are contending, arenot, like Christ, bringing in a new and higher truth, but an actualerror. To point out that it is an error, to defend ourselves and theChurch from it, is most right, and most highly our duty; but it isneither right, nor our duty, but the very sin of the Pharisees, to putit down merely by saying, "As for this fellow, we know not from whencehe is;" to treat the whole question as an impiety, and to deny thevirtues and the holiness of those who maintain it, because they are, aswe call it, "speaking blasphemous things against the holy place andagainst the law. " The mischief of this to ourselves is infinite; nay, inits extreme, it leads to language which is fearfully resembling the veryblasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for, when we say, as has been said, that where men's lives are apparently good and holy, and their doctrinesare against those of the Church, the holiness is an unreal holiness, andthat we cannot see into their hearts, this is, in fact, denying the HolySpirit's most infallible sign--the fruits of righteousness; and beingpositive rather of the truth of the Church, than of the truth of God. There is nothing so certain as that goodness is from God; nothing socertain as that sin is not from God; nothing so certain as that sin isnot from him. To deny, or doubt this, is to dispute the greatestassurance of truth that God has ever been pleased to give to us. It doesnot, by any means, follow, that all good men are free from error, northat error is less error because good men hold it; but to make the errorwhich is less certain, a reason for disputing the goodness which is morecertain, is the spirit, not of God, nor of the Church of God, but ofthose false zealots who put an idol in God's place; of such as rejectedChrist and murdered Stephen. 

LECTURE XXXIV. 

 * * * * *

1 CORINTHIANS xiv, 20. 

_Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit, in malice be yechildren, but in understanding be men_. 

It would be going a great deal too far to say, that they who fulfilledthe latter part of this command, were sure also to fulfil the former;that they who were men in understanding, were, therefore, likely to bechildren in malice. But the converse holds good, with remarkablecertainty, that they who are children in understanding, areproportionally apt to be men in malice: that is, in proportion as menneglect that which should be the guide of their lives, so are they leftto the mastery of their passions; and as nature and outwardcircumstances do not allow these passions to remain as quiet and aslittle grown as they are in childhood, --for they are sure to ripenwithout any trouble of ours, --so men are left with nothing but the evilsof both ages, the vices of the man, and the unripeness and ignorance ofthe child. 

It is indeed a strange and almost incredible thing, that any should everhave united in their minds the notions of innocence and ignorance asapplied to any but literal children: nor is it less strange, that anyshould ever have been afraid of their understanding, and should havesought goodness through prejudice, and blindness, and folly. Comparedwith this, their conduct was infinitely reasonable who weakened andtormented their bodies in order to strengthen, as they thought, theirspiritual nature. Such conduct was, by comparison, reasonable becausethere is a great deal of bodily weakness and discomfort, which reallydoes not interfere with the strength and purity of our character initself, although, by abridging our activity, it may lessen our means ofusefulness. But what should we say of a man who directed his ill usageof his body to that part of our system which is most closely connectedwith the brain; who were purposely to impair his nervous system, andsubject himself to those delusions and diseased views of things whichare the well-known result of any disorder there? Yet this is preciselywhat they do who seek to mortify and lower their understanding. It is asimpossible that they should become better men by such a process, as ifthey were literally to take medicines to affect their nerves or theirbrain, in the hope of becoming idiotic or delirious. It is, in fact, theworst kind of self-murder; for it is a presumptuous destroying of thatwhich is our best life, because we dread to undergo those trials whichGod has appointed for the perfecting both of it and of us. 

But from the wilful blindness of these men, let us turn to the Christianwisdom of the Apostle: "In malice be ye children, but in understandingbe men. " Let us turn to what is recorded of our Lord in his early life, at that age when, as man, the cultivation of his understanding was hisparticular duty--that he was found in the temple, sitting in the midstof the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions: not askingquestions only, as one too impatient or too vain to wait for an answer, or to consider it when he had received it; not hearing only, as onecareless and passive, who thinks that the words of wisdom can improvehis mind by being indolently admitted through the ears, with no moreeffort than his body uses when it is refreshed by a cooling air, or whenit is laid down in running water; but both hearing and asking questions;docile and patient, yet active and intelligent; knowing that the wisdomwas to be communicated from without, but that it belongs to the vigorousexercise of the power within, to apprehend it, and to convert it tonourishment. 

Now, what is recorded of our Lord for our example, as to the manner inwhich he received instruction when delivered by word of mouth, this samething should we do with that instruction, which, as is the ease withmost of ours, we derive from reading. Put the Scriptures in the place ofthose living teachers whom Christ was so eager to hear; the words ofChrist, and of his Spirit, instead of those far inferior guides fromwhom, notwithstanding, he, for our sakes, once submitted to learn; andwhat can be more exact than the application of the example? Let us befound in God's true temple, in the communion of his faithfulpeople, --his universal Church, sitting down as it were, surrounded bythe voices of the oracles of God--prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christhimself: let us be found with the record of these oracles in our hands, both reading them and asking them questions. 

It is quite clear that what hinders a true understanding of anything isvagueness; and it is by this process of asking questions that vaguenessis to be dispelled: for, in the first place, it removes one greatvagueness, or indistinctness, which is very apt to beset the minds ofmany; namely, the not clearly seeing whether they understand a thing orno; and much more, the not seeing what it is that they do understand, and what it is which they do not. Take any one of our Lord's parables, and read it even to a young child: there will be something of animpression conveyed, and some feelings awakened; but all will beindistinct; the child will not know whether he understands or no, butwill soon gain the habit of supposing that he does, as that is at oncethe least troublesome, and the least unpleasant to our vanity. And thissame vague impression is often received by uneducated persons fromreading or bearing either the Scriptures or sermons; it is by no meansthe same as if they had read or heard something in an unknown language;but yet they can give no distinct account of what they have heard orread; they do not know how far they understand it, and how far they donot. Here, then, is the use of "asking questions, "--asking questions ofourselves or of our book, I mean, for I am supposing the case of ourreading, when it can rarely happen that we have any living person athand to give us an answer. Now, taking the earliest and simplest stateof knowledge, it is plain that the first question to put to ourselveswill be, "Do I understand the meaning of all the words and expressionsin what I have been reading?" I know that this is taking things at theirvery beginning, but it is my wish to do so. Now, so plain and forcibleis the English of our Bible, generally speaking, that the wordsdifficult to be understood will probably not be many: yet some such dooccur, owing, in some instances, to a change of the language; as in thewords "let, " and "prevent, " which now signify, the one, "to allow, orsuffer to be done, " and the other "to stop, or hinder, " but whichsignified, when our translation was made, the first, "to stop orhinder, " and the second, "to be beforehand with us;" as in the prayer, "Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with thy most gracious favour;"the meaning is, "Let thy favour be with us beforehand, O Lord, inwhatever we are going to do. " In other instances the words are difficultbecause they are used in a particular sense, such as we do not learnfrom our common language; of which kind are the words "elect, " "saints, ""justification, " "righteousness, " and many others. Now, if we askourselves "whether we understand these words or no, " our common sense, when thus questioned, will readily tell us, whether we do or not;although if we had not directly asked the question, it might never havethought about it. Of course, our common sense cannot tell us what thetrue meaning is; that is a matter of information, and our means ofgaining information may be more or less; but still, a great step isgained, the mist is partly cleared away; we can say to ourselves, "Hereis something which I do understand, and here is something which I donot; I must keep the two distinct, for the first I may use, the second Icannot; I will mark it down as a thing about which I may get explanationat another time; but at present it is a blank in the picture, it is thesame as if it were not there. " This, then, is the first process ofself-questioning, adapted, as I have already said, to those whoseknowledge is most elementary. 

Suppose, however, that we are got beyond difficulties of this sort--thatthe words and particular expressions of the Scriptures are mostly clearto us. Now, take again one of our Lord's parables; say, for instance, that of the labourers in the vineyard: we read it, and find that he whowent to work at the eleventh hour received as much as he who had beenworking all the day. This seems to say, that he who begins to serve Godin his old age shall receive his crown of glory no less than he who hasserved him all his life. But now try the process of self-questioning:what do I think that Christ means me to learn from this? what is thelesson to me? what is it to make me feel, or think, or do? If it makesme think that I shall receive an equal crown of glory if I begin toserve God in my old age, and therefore if it leads me to livecarelessly, this is clearly making Christ encourage wickedness; and sucha thought is blasphemy. He cannot mean me to learn this from it: let melook at the parable again. Who is it who is reproved in those wordswhich seem to contain its real object? It is one who complains of Godfor having rewarded others equally with himself. Now this I can see isnot a good feeling: it is pride and jealousy. In order, then to learnwhat the parable means me to learn, let me put myself in the position ofthose reproved in it. If I complain that others are rewarded by God asmuch as I am, it is altogether a bad feeling, and one which I ought tocheck; for I have nothing to do with God's dealings to others, let methink of what concerns myself. Here I have the lesson of the parablecomplete: and here I find it is useful for me. But if I take it for adifferent object, and suppose that it means to encourage waiting tillthe eleventh hour--waiting till we are old before we repent--we findthat we make it only actually to be mischievous to us. And thus we gaina great piece of knowledge: namely, that the parables of our Lord aremostly designed to teach, some one particular lesson, with respect tosome one particular fault: and that if we take them generally, as if allin them was applicable to all persons, whether exposed to thatparticular fault or not, we shall absolutely be in danger of derivingmischief from them instead of good. It is true, that in this particularparable, the gross wickedness of such an interpretation as I havementioned is guarded against even in the story itself; because those whoworked only at the eleventh hour are expressly said to have stood idleso long only because no man had hired them; their delay, therefore, wasno fault of their own. But even if this circumstance had been left out, it would have been just the same; because the general rule is, that weapply to a parable only for its particular lesson, and do not strain itto any thing else. Had this been well understood, no one would have everfound so much difficulty in understanding the parable of theunjust steward. 

This is another great step towards the dispelling vagueness, to applythe particular lesson of each part of Scripture to that state ofknowledge, or feeling, or practice in ourselves, which it was intendedto benefit; to apply it as a lesson to ourselves, not as a general truthfor our neighbours. And the very desire to do this, makes us naturallylook with care to the object of every passage--to see to whom it wasaddressed, and on what occasion; for this will often surely guide us tothe point that we want. But in order to do this, we must strive toclothe the whole in our own common language; to get rid of thoseexpressions which to us convey the meaning faintly; and to put it intosuch others as shall come most strongly home to us. This I have spokenof on other occasions; and I have so often witnessed the bad effects ofnot doing so, that I am sure it may well bear to be noticed again; Imean the putting such words as "persecution, " "the cares and riches ofthe world, " "the kingdom of God, " "confessing Christ, " "denying Christ, "and many others, into a language which to us has more lively reality, which makes us manifestly see that it is of us, and of our common life, and of our dangers, that the scripture is speaking, and not only ofthings in a remote time and country, and under circumstances quiteunlike our own. Therefore I have a strong objection to the use of whatis called peculiarly religious language, because I am sure that ithinders us from bringing the matter of that language thoroughly home tous; our minds do not entirely assimilate with, it; or if they fancy thatthey do, it is only by their becoming themselves affected, and losingtheir sense of the reality of things around them. For our language isfixed for us, and we cannot alter it; and into that common language inwhich we think and feel, all truth must be translated, if we would thinkand feel respecting it at once rightly, clearly, and vividly. Happy ishe, who, by practising this early, has imbued his own natural languagewith the spirit of God's wisdom and holiness; and who can see, andunderstand, and feel them the better, because they are so put into aform with which he is perfectly familiar. 

More might be said, very much more, but here I will now pause. In thisworld, wherein heavenly things are, after all, hard to seize and fixupon, we have great need that no mists of imperfect understanding darkenthem, over and above those of the corrupt will. To see them clearly, tounderstand them distinctly and vividly, may, indeed, after all be vain:a thicker veil may yet remain behind, and we may see and understand, andyet perish. Only the clear sight of God in Christ can be no lightblessing; and there may be a hope, that understanding and approving withall our minds his excellent wisdom, the light may warm us as well asassist our sight; that we may see, and not in our vague and empty sense, but in the force of the scriptural meaning of the word, --may see, andso believe. 

LECTURE XXXV. 

 * * * * *

MATTHEW xxvi. 45, 46. 

_Sleep on now and take your rest; behold, the hour is at hand, and theSon of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be. Going; behold, he is at hand that doth betray me_. 

I take these verses for my text, in the first place, because some havefancied a difficulty in them, and have even proposed to alter thetranslation, and read the first words as a question, "Do ye still sleepand take your rest?" and because they are really a very goodillustration of our Lord's manner of speaking, a manner which it is ofthe highest importance to us fully to understand. And, secondly, I takethem as a text for the general lesson which they convey to us; theirmixture of condemnation and mercy; their view, at once looking backwardsand forwards, not losing sight of irreparable evils of a neglected past, nor yet making those evils worse by so dwelling upon them as to forgetthe still available future; not concealing from us the solemn truth, that what is done cannot be undone, yet warning us also not to undo by avain despair that future which may yet be done to our soul's health. 

First, a difficulty has been fancied to exist in the words, as if ourLord had bade his disciples to do two contradictory things: tellingthem, first, to sleep on and take their rust, and then saying, "Rise, let us be going. " And because in St. Luke's account, when our Lordcomes to his disciples the last time, his words are given thus, "Whysleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation:" therefore, as I have said, his words in the text have been translated, "Are yesleeping and resting for the remainder of the time?" Now, I should nottake up your time with things of this sort, where I believe our commontranslation to be most certainly right, were it not for the sake of oneor two general remarks, which I think may not be out of place. It is ageneral rule, that in passages not obscure, but appearing to containsome moral difficulty, if I may so speak; that is, something which seemsinconsistent with our notions of God's holiness, or wisdom, or justice;something, in short, of a stumbling-block, which we fear may occasion atriumph to unbelievers; it is a rule, I say, that in passages of thiskind the difficulty is not to be met by departing from thecommon-received translation. And the reason of this is plain; that hadnot the commonly received translation in such cases been clearly theright one, it would never have come to be commonly received. Amongst thethousands of interpreters of Scripture, all, from the earliest time, anxious to remove grounds of cavil from the adversaries of their faith, a passage would never have been translated so as to afford such aground, if the right translation of it could have been different. Suchplaces are especially those in which the common translation needs not tobe suspected: and it is merely leading us astray from the trueexplanation of the apparent difficulty, when we thus attempt to evade itby tampering with the translation. A notable instance of this wasafforded some few years since in a new translation of some of the booksof the Old Testament; in which it was pretended that most of thosepoints which had been most attacked by unbelievers were, in fact, meremistranslations, and that the real meaning of the original wassomething totally different; and, in order to show the necessity of hisalterations, the writer entirely allowed the objections of unbelieversto the common reading; and said that no sufficient answer had been orcould be made to them. This was an extreme case, and probably imposedonly on a very few: but less instances of the same thing are common: St. Paul's words about being baptized for the dead, have been twisted to allsorts of senses, from their natural and only possible meaning, becausemen could not bear to believe that the superstition of being baptized asproxies for another could have existed at a period which they wereresolved to consider so pure: and so in the text, a force has been putupon the words which they cannot bear, in order to remove a supposedcontradiction: and all that would have been gained by the change wouldbe, to have one instructive illustration the less of our Lord's peculiarmanner of discourse, and one instance the less of the inimitable way inwhich his language, addressed directly to the circumstances before him, contains, at the same time, a general lesson, for the use of all hisdisciples in all ages. 

Our Lord's habitual language was parabolical; I use the word in a widesense, to include all language which is not meant to be taken accordingto the letter. Observe his conversation with the Samaritan woman; itbegins at once with parable, "If thou hadst known who it was that askedof thee, saying, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, andhe would have given thee living water. " And again, "Whoso drinketh ofthe water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but it shall be inhim a well of water, springing up unto life eternal. " This seems to havebeen, if I may venture to say so, the favourite language in which hepreferred to speak; but when he found that he was not understood, then, according to the nature of the case, he went on in two or threedifferent manners. When he, to whom all hearts were open, saw that themisunderstanding was wilful, that it arose out of a disposition glad tofind an excuse, in his pretended obscurity, for not listening to him andobeying him, then, instead of explaining his language, he made it moreand more figurative; more likely to be misunderstood, or to offend thosewhom he knew to be disposed beforehand to misunderstand and to beoffended. A famous example of this may be seen in the sixth chapter ofSt. John; there he first calls himself the Bread of Life, and says, thatwhosoever should eat of that bread should live for ever: but when hefound that the Jews cavilled at this language, instead of explaining it, he only added expressions yet more strongly parabolical; "Except ye eatthe flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life inyou:" and he dwells on this image so long, that we find that many of hisdisciples, bent on interpreting it literally, and, in this sense, finding it utterly shocking, went back and walked no more with him. Again, when he found not a disposition to cavil, but yet a profoundignorance of his meaning, arising from a state of mind wholly unused tothink of spiritual good and evil, he neither used, as to those whowilfully misunderstood him, language that would offend them still more, nor yet did he offer a direct explanation; but he broke off theconversation, and adopted another method of instruction. Thus, when theSamaritan woman, thinking only of bodily wants, answered him by saying, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither todraw, " he neither goes on to speak to her in the same language, nor yetdoes he explain it; but at once addresses her in a different manner, saying, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither. " Thirdly, when he wasspeaking to his own disciples, to whom it was given to know themysteries of the kingdom of God, he generally explained his meaning, --atleast so far as to prevent practical error, --when he found that they hadnot understood him. Thus, when he had said to them, "Beware of theleaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod, " and they thoughtonly of leaven and of bread in the literal sense, he upbraids them, indeed, for their slowness, saying, "Are ye also yet withoutunderstanding?" but he goes on to tell them in express terms that he didnot mean to speak to them of the leaven of bread. And the words of thetext are an exactly similar instance: his first address is parabolical;that is, it is not meant to be taken to the letter; "Sleep on now, andtake your rest, " meaning, "Ye can now do me no good by watching, for thetime is past, and he who betrayed me is at hand; ye might as well sleepon now and take your rest, for I need not try you any longer. " But, asthe time was really pressing, and there was a possibility that theymight have misunderstood his words, and have really continued to sleep, he immediately added in different language, "Rise, let us be going;behold, he is at hand that doth betray me. " We must be prepared, then, to find that our Lord's language, not only to the Jews at large, buteven to his own disciples, is commonly parabolical; the worstinterpretation which we can give to it is commonly the literal one. Hisconversation with his disciples, just before he went out to the gardenof Gethsemane, as recorded in the thirteenth, and following chapters ofSt. John, is a most striking proof of this. If any one looks throughthem, he will find how many are the comparisons, and figurative mannersof speaking, which abound in them, and how often his disciples were at aloss to understand his meaning, And he himself declares this, for, atthe end of the sixteenth chapter, he says expressly, "These things Ihave spoken unto you in proverbs;"--that is, language not to be takenaccording to the letter;--"the time is coming when I will no more speakunto you in proverbs, but will show you plainly of the Father. " Andthen, when he goes on to declare, what he never, it seems, had beforetold them in such express and literal language, "I came forth from theFather, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go tomy Father, " his disciples seem to have welcomed with joy this departurefrom his usual manner of speaking, and said immediately, "Lo! nowspeakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb: now we know that thouknowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: bythis we believe that thou earnest forth from God. "

But let us observe what it is that he said: "A time is coming when Ishall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but shall show you plainly ofthe Father. " That time came immediately. He spoke to them after hisresurrection, opening their understandings to understand the Scriptures:he spoke yet more fully, by his Spirit, after the day of Pentecost, leading them into all truth. And what they thus heard in the ear, theyproclaimed, according to his bidding, upon the house-tops. When the HolySpirit brought to their remembrance all that he had said to them, andgave their minds a spiritual judgment, to compare what they thus hadbrought before them, to see his words in their true light and their truebearings, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, they were noniggards of this heavenly treasure; nor did they, according to the vainheresy of the worst corrupters of Christ's gospel, imitate and surpassthat sin which they had so heavily judged in Ananias. They kept back nopart-of that which they professed and were commanded to lay wholly andentirely at the feet of God's church. They did not so lie to the HolyGhost, as to erect a wicked system of priestcraft in the place of thatholy gospel of which they were ministers. They had no reserve of asecret doctrine for themselves and a chosen few, keeping in their ownhands the key of knowledge, and opening only half of the door; but asthey had freely received, so they freely gave; all that they knew, theytaught to all: and so, through their blessed teaching, we too canunderstand our Lord's words as they were taught to understand them: andwhat is parabolical, is no longer on that account obscure, but full oflight and of beauty, fulfilling the end for which it was chosen, themost effective of all ways of teaching, because the liveliest. 

I have left myself but little space to touch upon the second part of thesubject--the general lesson conveyed in our Lord's-words to hisdisciples: "Sleep on now, and take your rest. --Rise; let us be going. "How truly do we deserve the reproof; how thankfully may we accept thecall. We have forfeited many opportunities which we would in vainrecover; we have been careless when we should have been watchful; andthat for which we should have watched, is now lost by our neglect; andit is no good to watch for it any more. Let us remember this, while itis called to-day; for how often is it particularly applicable to ushere, from the passing nature of your stay amongst us! To both you andus too often belongs our Lord's remonstrance, "What, could ye not watchwith me one hour?" So short a time as you stay here, could we not bewatching with Christ that little period: from which, if well improved, there might spring forth a fruit so lasting? But, alas! we too oftensleep it away: we do not all that we might do, nor do you; evil growsinstead of good, till the time is past, and you leave us; and we may aswell sleep on, and take our rest, so far as all that particular goodwas concerned--the improvement, namely, of your time at this place, forwhich we are alike set to watch. But are we to take the words ofreproach literally? May we really sleep on, and take our rest? Oh vainand wilful folly, so to misunderstand! But, lest we shouldmisunderstand, let us hear our Lord's next words: "Rise; let us begoing, " and that instantly: the time and opportunity already lost forever is far more than enough. --"Rise; let us be going:" so Christ callsus; for he has still other work for us to do, for him, and with him. Thefuture is yet our own, though the past be lost. We have sinned greatlyand irreparably; but let us not do so yet again: other opportunities areafforded us; the disciples would not watch with him in the garden, buthe calls them to go with him to his trial and his judgment; and one, weknow, watched by him even on his cross:--so he calls to us; so he callsnow; but he will not so call for ever. There will be a time when wemight strike out the words, "Rise; let us be going;" they will concernus then no more. It is only said, "Sleep on now, and take your rest: allyour watching time has been wasted, and you can now watch no more;"there remains only to sleep--to sleep that last sleep, from which weshall then never wake to God and happiness, but in which we shall beawake for ever to sin and to misery. 

LECTURE XXXVI. 

 * * * * *

2 CORINTHIANS v. 17, 18. 

_Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new: and allthings are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_. 

I have, from time to time, spoken of that foolish misuse of theScriptures, by which any one opening the volume of the Bible at random, and taking the first words which he finds, straightway applies themeither to himself or to his neighbour; and then boasts that he has theword of God on his side, and that whosoever differs from him, isdisputing and despising the word of God. The most extreme instances ofthis way of proceeding are so absurd, that they could not be noticed inthis place becomingly; and these, of course, stand palpable to all, except to those who have allowed themselves to fall into them. But farshort of these manifest follies, great errors have been maintained ongeneral points, and great mistakes, whether of over presumption or ofover fear, have been committed as to men's particular state, by quotingScripture unadvisedly; by taking hold of its words to the neglect oractual violation of its spirit and real meaning. This is a great and avery common mischief, but yet there is a truth at the bottom of theerror; it is true, that the greatest questions relating to God and toourselves, may find their answer in the Scriptures; it is true, that ifwe search for this answer wisely we may surely find it. 

Consider the words of the text, and see how easily they may beperverted, if with no more ado we take them, as said of ourselves, eachindividually, and as containing to each of us a statement positive oftruth. "Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. "If we believe that this is God's word respecting each of us, whatviolence must we do to our memory of the past, and our consciousness ofthe present, if we do try to persuade ourselves that so total a changehas taken place in each of us, that what we once were, we are no longer;that what we are, we once were not; and this not in some few particularpoints, but in the main character of our minds. Again, "All things areof God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. " If we applythese words to each of us, what exceeding presumption would they breed!If all things in us and about us are now of God, what room can there befor sin? If God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, what roomcan there be for fear or for danger? And thus, while we say we arequoting and believing the word of God, we do in fact turn it into a lie;we make it assert a falsehood as to our past state, and a falsehood asto our future state; we make it say, that our old nature is passed away, when it is not; that we have got a new nature when we have not; that weare reconciled to God, and therefore in safety, when we are, in fact, inthe extremest danger. 

But it is easy to see that we have no right to apply to ourselves wordswritten by St. Paul eighteen hundred years ago, and applied by him toother persons. I go, then, farther; and I say, that if every member ofthe church of Corinth, to which they were written, had applied them tohimself in the manner which I have shown above, the words would in manyinstances have been perverted no less, and would have been made to statewhat was false, and not what was true. And the same may be said of manyother passages of St. Paul's Epistles, which, having been similarlymisinterpreted, have furnished matter for endless controversies, and onwhich opposite theories of doctrine have been fondly raised, each ofthem alike unchristian and untrue. 

Thus our present position is this:--that oftentimes by taking therepresentations of Scripture as true in fact, whether of ourselves or ofothers, we come to conclusions at once false and mischievous; being, asthe case may be, either presumptuous, or fearful, or uncharitable, andclaiming for each of these faults the sanction of the word of God. 

A similar mistake in interpreting human compositions, has led to faultsof another kind. Assuming as before, in interpreting St. Paul's words, that the language of our Liturgy is meant to describe, as a matter offact, the actual feelings and condition of those who use it, or for whomit is used; and seeing manifestly that these feelings and condition donot agree with the words; we do not here, as with the Scripture, doviolence to our common sense and conscience, by insisting upon it thatwe agree with the words, but we find fault with the words as being atvariance with the matter of fact. Some say that the language of theGeneral Confession is too strong a statement of sin; that the languageof the Communion Service, of the Baptismal Service, and above all, ofthe Burial Service, is too full of encouragement and of assurance; thatmen are not all so bad as to require the one, 'nor so good as to deservethe other; that in both cases it should be lowered, to agree with theactual condition of those who use it. 

Now it is worthy of notice, at any rate, that the self-same rule ofinterpretation applied to the Scripture and the Liturgy is found to suitwith neither. We adhere positively to our rule: and thus, as we hold thewords of Scripture sacred, we force common sense and conscience to makethe facts agree with them; but not having the same respect for the wordsof the Liturgy, we complain of them as faulty and requiring alteration, because they do not agree with the facts. 

I will not enter into the question whether the Liturgy has done wiselyor not in thus imitating the Scripture; but I do contend that, in pointof fact, there is this resemblance between them. St. Paul's Epistles, inparticular, although it is true of other parts of the Scripture also, contain, as does the Liturgy of our Church, a great many passages which, if taken either universally or even generally as containing a matter offact, will lead us into certain error. Is it, therefore, so very certainthat we do wisely in so interpreting them?

With regard to our Liturgy I need not follow up the question now; butwith regard to St. Paul, it is certain that he, in many parts of hisEpistles, chooses to represent that which ought to be as that whichactually was: he chooses to regard those to whom he is writing as beingin all respects true Christians, as being worthy of their privileges, asanswering to what God had done to them, as forming a church reallyinhabited by the Holy Spirit, and therefore being a true and living bodyof due proportions to Christ its Divine head. Nor does he trustexclusively to the common sense and conscience of those to whom he waswriting to interpret his language correctly. He might Lave thoughtindeed that if he wrote to them as redeemed, justified, sanctified, ashaving all things new, as being the children of God, and the heirs ofGod, and the temples of the Holy Ghost, any individual who felt that hewas none of these things, that sin was still mighty within him, and thathe was sin's slave, would neither deny his own conscience, nor yet callSt. Paul a deceiver; but would read in the difference between St. Paul'sdescription of him and the reality, the exact measure of his own sin, and need of repentance and watchfulness. But he does not rely on thisonly: he notices sins as actually existing; he mingles the language ofreproof and of anxiety, so as to make it quite clear that he did notmean his descriptions of their holiness and blessedness to apply to themall necessarily; he knew full well that they did not: but yet he knewalso that, considering what God had done for them, it was monstrous thatthey should not be truly applicable. 

But why then, you will say, did he use such language? why did he callmen forgiven, redeemed, saved, justified, sanctified?--he uses all theseterms often as applicable generally to those to whom he waswriting;--why did he call them so, when in fact they were not so? Hecalled them so for the same reason which, made prophecy foretellblessings upon Israel of old, and on the Christian church afterwards, which were fulfilled on neither:--in order to declare, and keep everbefore us, what God has done and is willing to do for us: what he fainwould do for us, if we would but suffer him; what divine powers areoffered to us, and we will not use them; what divine happiness isdesigned for us, and we will not enter into it. Let us ponder all themagnificence of the scriptural language, --the words of the text forexample, not as describing what we are when we are full of sin; nor yetas mere exaggerated language, which must be brought down to the level ofour present reality. Let us consider it as containing the words oftruth and soberness; not one jot or one tittle needs to be abated; itmust not be lowered to us, but we rather raised to it. It is a truth, itis the word of God, it is the seal of our assurance: it is that whichgood men of old would have welcomed with the deepest joy; which, to goodmen now is a source of comfort unspeakable. For it tells us that God hasdone for us, is doing, will do, all that we need; it tells us that theprice of our redemption has been paid, the kingdom of heaven has beenset open, the power to walk as God's children has been given: that sofar as God is concerned we are redeemed, we are saved, we aresanctified; it is but our own fault merely that we are not all of theseactually and surely. 

This is not a little matter to be persuaded of; if it be true, as I fearit is, that too many of us do not love God, is it not quite as true thatwe cannot believe that God loves us? Have we any thing like a distinctsense of the words of St. John, "We love God because he first loved us?"We believe in the love of our earthly friends; those who have so latelyleft their homes have no manner of doubt that their parents areinterested in their welfare, though absent; that they will often thinkof them; and that, as far as it is possible at a distance from them, they are watching over their good, and anxious to promote it. The veryname home implies all this; it implies that it is a place where thoselive who love us; and I do not question that the consciousness ofpossessing this love does, amidst all your faults and forgetfulnesses, rise not unfrequently within your minds, and restrain you from makingyourselves altogether unworthy of it. Now, I say, that the words of thetext, and hundreds of similar passages, are our assurance, if we wouldbut believe them, that we have another home and another parent, by whomwe are loved constantly and earnestly, who has done far more for usthan our earthly parents can do. I grant that it is hard to believe thisreally; so infinite is the distance between God and us, that we cannotfancy that he cares for us; he may make laws for a world, or for asystem, but what can he think or feel for us? It is, indeed, a thoughtabsolutely overpowering to the mind; it may well seem incredible to us, judging either from our own littleness or our own forgetfulness; so hardas we find it to think enough of those to whom we are most nearly bound, how can the Most High. God think of us? But if there be any one particleof truth in Christianity, we are warranted in saying that God does loveus; strange as it may seem, He, whom neither word nor thought of createdbeing can compass; He, who made us and ten thousand worlds, loves eachone of us individually; "the very hairs of our heads are all numbered. "He so loved us, that he gave his only-begotten Son to die for us; andSt. Paul well asks, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered himup for us all, will he not also with him freely give us all things?"

Believe me, you could have no better charm to keep you safe through, thetemptations of the coming half year, than this most true persuasion thatGod loves you. The oldest and the youngest of us may alike repeat tohimself the blessed words, "God loves me;" "God loves me; God hasredeemed me: God would dwell in my heart, that I might dwell in him: Godhas placed me in his church, has made me a member of Christ his own Son, has made me an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. " I might multiplywords, but that one little sentence is, perhaps, more than all, "Godloves me. " Oh that you would believe him when he assures you of it, forthen surely you would not fail to love him. But whether you believe itor not, still it is so: God loves every one of us; he loves each one ofus as belonging to Christ his Son. He does love each, of us; let us notcast his love away from us, and refuse to love him in return; he doeslove each of us now, but there may be a time to each of us, --there willbe, assuredly, if we will not believe that he loves us, when he willlove us no more for ever. 

LECTURE XXXVII. 

 * * * * *

EZEKIEL xx. 49. 

_Then said I, Ah, Lord God I they say of me, Doth he not speakparables_?

Nothing is more disheartening, if we must believe it to be true, thanthe language in which some persons talk of the difficulty of theScriptures, and the absolute certainty that different men will evercontinue to understand them differently. It is not, we are told, withthe knowledge of Scripture as with that of outward nature: in theknowledge of nature, discoveries are from time to time made which seterror on the one side, and truth on the other, absolutely beyonddispute; there the ground when gained is clearly seen to be so; and asfresh sources of knowledge are continually opening to us, it is notbeyond hope that we may in time arrive infinitely near to the enjoymentof truth, --truth certain in itself, and acknowledged by all unanimously. But with Scripture, it is said, the case is far otherwise; discoveriesare not to be expected here, nor does a later generation derive from, its additional experience any greater insight into the things of Godthan was enjoyed by the generations before it. And when we see thatactually the complete Scriptures have been in the world not much lessthan eighteen hundred years; that within that period no other book hasbeen so much studied; and yet that differences of opinion as to thematters spoken of in it have ever existed, and exist now as much asever, what reasonable prospect is there, it is asked, of future harmonyor of clearer demonstrations of divine truth; and will not the good onthese points ever continue to differ from the good, and the wise todiffer from the wise?

This language, so discouraging as it is, may be heard from two veryopposite parties, so that their agreement may appear to give it the moreweight: it is used by men who are indifferent to religious truth, as anexcuse for their taking no pains to discover what the truth really is;it is echoed back quite as strongly by another set of persons who wishto magnify the uncertainties of the Scripture in order to recommend moreplausibly the guidance of some supposed authoritative interpreter of it. But yet it ought to be at any rate a painful work to any serious mind tobe obliged to dwell not only on the obscurities of God's word, but onits perpetual and invincible obscurities; and, though an interpreter maybe necessary if we know not the language of those with whom we areconversing, yet how much better would it be that we should ourselvesknow it: nay, and if we are told that we cannot know it, that our bestendeavours will be unable to master it, the suspicion inevitably arisesin our minds, that our pretended interpreter may be ignorant of it also;that he is not in truth better acquainted with it than we, but only morepresumptuous or more dishonest. 

Still a statement may be painful, but at the same time true. There isundoubtedly something in such language as I have been alluding to, whichappears to be confirmed by experience. There is no denying the fact, that the Scriptures have been a long time in the world; that they havebeen very generally and carefully read; and yet that men do differexceedingly as to religious truth, and these differences do not seem tobe tending towards agreement. It seems to me, there fore, desirablethat every student of the Scriptures should know, as well as may be, what the exact state of the question is; for if the subject of hisstudies is really so hopelessly uncertain, it is scarcely possible thathis zeal in studying it should not be abated; nay, could we wiselyencourage him to bestow his pains on a hopeless labour?

Now, in the very outset, there is this consideration which many of ushere are well able to appreciate. We read many books written in deadlanguages, most of them more ancient than any part of the New Testament, some of them older than several of the books of the Old. We know wellenough that these ancient books are not without their difficulties; thattime, and thought, and knowledge are required to master them; but stillwe do not doubt that, with the exception of particular-passages here andthere, the true meaning of these books may be discovered with undoubtedcertainty. We know, too, that this certainty has increased; thatinterpretations, which, were maintained some years ago, have been setaside by our improved knowledge of the languages and condition of theancient world, quite as certainly as old errors in physical science havebeen laid to rest by later discoveries. Farther, our improved knowledgehas taught us to distinguish what may be known from what may be probablyconcluded, and what is probable from what can merely be guessed at. Whenwe come to points of this last sort, to passages which cannot beinterpreted or understood, we leave them at once as a blank; but weenjoy no less, and understand with no less certainty, the greatestportions of the book which, contain them. And this experience, withregard to the works of heathen antiquity, makes it a startlingproposition at the very outset, when we are told that with the works ofChristian antiquity the case is otherwise. 

We thus approach the statement as to the hopless difficulty ofScripture, confirmed, as we are told it is, by the actual fact of thegreat disagreements among Christians, with a well-grounded mistrust ofits soundness; we feel sure that there is something in it which isconfused or sophistical. And considering the fact which appears toconfirm it, I mean the actual differences between Christians andChristians, it soon appears by no means to bear out its supposedconclusion. For the differences between Christians and Christians by nomeans arise generally from the difficulty of understanding the Scripturearight, but from disagreement as to some other point, quite independentof the interpretation of the Scriptures. For example, the greatquestions at issue between us and the Roman Catholics turn upon twopoints, --Whether there is not another authority, in matters ofChristianity, distinct from and equal to the Scriptures, --and whethercertain interpretations of Scripture are not to be received as true, forthe sake of the authority of the interpreter. Now, suppose for a moment, that the works of Plato or Aristotle were to us in the place of theScriptures; and that the question was, whether these works of theirscould be understood with certainty; it would prove nothing against ourbeing able to understand them, if, whilst we look to them alone, anotherman were to say, that, to his judgment, the works of other philosopherswere no less authoritative; or, if he were to insist upon it, that theinterpretations given by the scholiasts were always sure to be correct, because the scholiasts were the authorized interpreters of the text. Nodoubt our philosophical opinions and our practice might differ widelyfrom such a man's; but the difference would prove nothing as to theobscurity of Plato's or Aristotle's text, because another standard hadbeen brought in, distinct from their works, and from the acknowledgedprinciples of interpretation, and thus led unavoidably to adifferent result. 

The same also is the case as to the questions at issue between theChurch of England and many of the Dissenters. In these disputes it isnotorious that the practice and authority of the church are continuallyappealed to, or, it may be, considerations of another kind, as to theinherent reasonableness of a doctrine; all which are, again, a distinctmatter from the interpretation of Scripture. One of the greatest men ofour time has declared, that, in the early part of his life, he did notbelieve in the divinity of our Lord; but he has stated expressly, thathe never for a moment persuaded himself that St. Paul or St. John didnot believe it; their language he thought was clear enough, upon thepoint; but the notion appeared to him so unreasonable in itself, that hedisbelieved it in spite of their authority. It is manifest, that, inthis case, great as the difference was between this great man's earlybelief and his later, yet it in no way arose from the obscurity of theScripture. The language of the Scripture was as clear to him at first asit was afterwards; but in his early life he disbelieved it, while, inhis latter life, he embraced it with all his heart and soul. 

It must not be denied, however, that we are here arrived at one of thecauses which are likely, for a long time, to keep alive a falseinterpretation of Scripture, and which do not affect our interpretationof heathen writings. For most men, in such a case as I have referred to, when they do not believe the language of the Scripture, but wish toalter it, whether by omission or addition, do not deal so fairly with itas that great man did to whom I have alluded. They have neither hisknowledge nor his honesty; a false interpretation is more easilydisguised from them, owing to their ignorance, and they let their wishesmore readily warp their judgment. Thus, they will not say as he did, "The Scripture clearly says so and so, but I cannot believe it;" theyrather say, "This is very unreasonable and shocking, the Scripturecannot mean to say this;" or, "This is very pious and very ancient, theScripture cannot but sanction this. " And certainly, if men will so dealwith it, there remains no certainty of interpretation then. But this isnot the way that we deal with other ancient writings; and its unfairnessand foolishness, if ever attempted to be practised there, are sopalpable as to be ridiculous. No doubt it is difficult to convince menagainst their will; nevertheless, there is a good hope, that, as soundprinciples of interpretation are more generally known, they will put toshame a flagrant departure from them; and that those who try to make theScripture say more or less than it has said, will be gradually driven toconfess that Scripture is not their real authority; that their ownnotions in the one case, and the authority of the Church in the othercase, have been the real grounds of their belief, to which they stroveto make the Scriptures conform. 

Nothing that I have said is, in any degree, meant to countenance theopinions of those who talk of the Bible, --or rather, our translation ofit, --being its own interpreter; meaning, that if you give a Bible to anyone who can read, he will be able to understand it rightly. Even in thisextravagance, there is indeed something of a truth. If a man were so toread the Bible, much he would, unquestionably, be able to understand;enough, I well believe, if honestly and devoutly used, to give him, ifliving in a desert island by himself, the knowledge of salvation. Butwhen we talk of understanding the Bible, so as to be guided by itamidst the infinite varieties of opinion and practice which beset us onevery side, it is the wildest folly to talk of it as being, in thissense, its own interpreter. Our comfort is, not that it can beunderstood without study, but with it; that the same pains which, enableus to understand heathen writings, whose meaning is of infinitely lessvalue to us, will enable us, with God's blessing, to understand theScriptures also. Neither do I mean, that mere intellectual study wouldmake them clear to the careless or the undevout; but, supposing us toseek honestly to know God's will, and to pray devoutly for his help toguide us to it, then our study is not vain nor uncertain; the mind ofthe Scriptures may be discovered; we may distinguish plainly betweenwhat is clear, and what is not clear; and what is not clear will befound far less in amount, and infinitely less in importance, than whatis clear. I do not say, that a true understanding of the Scriptures willsettle at once all religious differences;--manifestly, it cannot; for, although I may understand them well, yet if a man maintains an opinion, or a practice, upon some other authority than theirs, we cannot agreetogether. Nevertheless, we may be allowed to hope and believe, that intime, if men could be hindered from misinterpreting the Scripture inbehalf of their own opinions, their opinions themselves would find fewersupporters; for, as Christianity must come, after all, from our blessedLord and his apostles, men will shrink from saying that that is no truthof Christianity which Christ and his apostles have clearly taught, orthat that is a truth of Christianity, however ancient, and by whateverlong line of venerable names supported, which they have as clearly, inour sole authentic records of them, not taught. It is not, therefore, without great and reasonable hope, that we may devote ourselves to thestudy of the Scriptures; and those habits of study which are cultivatedhere, and in other places of the same kind, are the best ordinary meansof arriving at the truth. We are constantly engaged in extracting themeaning of those who have written in times past, and in a dead language. We do this according to certain rules, acknowledged as universally asthe laws of physical science: these rules are developed gradually, --fromthe simple grammar which forms our earliest lessons, to the rules ofhigher criticism, still no less acknowledged, which are understood bythose of a more advanced age. And we do this for heathen writings; butthe process is exactly the same--and we continually apply it, also, forthat very purpose--with what is required to interpret the Word of God. After all is done, we shall still, no doubt, find that the Scripture hasits parables, its passages which cannot now be understood; but we shallfind, also, that by much the larger portion of it may be clearly andcertainly known; enough to be, in all points which really concern ourfaith and practice, a lantern to our feet, and an enlightener toour souls. 

LECTURE XXXVIII. 

 * * * * *

ISAIAH v. 1. 

_Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching hisvineyard_. 

Whatever difficulties we may find in understanding and applying manyparts of the prophetical Scriptures, yet every thinking person couldfollow readily enough, I suppose, the chapter from which these words aretaken, as it was read in the course of this morning's service; and hewould feel, while understanding it as said, immediately and in the firstinstance, of the Jewish Church or nation, seven centuries and a halfbefore the birth of our Lord, that it was no less applicable to thisChristian church and nation at the present period. We cannot, indeed, expect to find a minute agreement in particular points between ourselvesand the Jews of old; the difference of times and circumstances rendersthis impossible; both they and we stand, on the one hand, in so nearlythe same relation to God, and we both so share, on the other hand, inthe same sinful human nature, that the complaints, and remonstrances ofthe prophets of old may often, be repeated, even in the very same words, by the Christian preacher now. 

If this be so, then the language of various parts of the service of theChurch in this season of Advent ought to excite in us no smallapprehension; for whilst the lessons from the Old Testament describethe evil state of the Jewish people in the eighth century before Christ, and threaten it with destruction, so the gospels for this day, and forlast Sunday, speak of the evil state of the same people when our Lordwas upon earth; and the chapter from which the gospel of this day istaken, contains, as we know, a full prophecy of the destruction thatwas, for the second time, going to overwhelm the earthly Jerusalem. Wecannot but fear, therefore, that if our state now be like that of God'speople of old, eight centuries before our Lord's coming, and again liketheir state at his coming: and if, after the first period, their cityand temple were burnt, and they were carried captive to Babylon, --andagain, after the second period, the city and temple were burnt again, and the people were dispersed, even to this day, --that, as thepunishment has twice surely followed the sin, so it will not fail tofind it out in this third case also. 

And be it remembered that the people, or church of God, as such, canreceive their punishment only in this world: for, taken as a body, it isan institution for this world only. We each of us, no doubt, shall haveour own separate individual judgment after death; and, in the mean time, our fortunes and our character often bear no just correspondence witheach other. But nations and churches have their judgments here: andalthough God's long-suffering so suspends it for many generations thatit may seem as if it would never fall, yet does it come surely at thelast; and almost always we can ourselves trace the connexion between thesin and the punishment, and can see that the one was clearly theconsequence of the other. And thus our church and nation may feel theirnational judgments in this world quite independently of the severalpersonal judgments which will be passed upon us each hereafterindividually, when we stand before Christ's judgment seat. 

I have thus ventured to bring the condition of the church as a bodybefore our minds, although well knowing how much more we are concernedwith the state of our own souls individually. Yet still the more generalview is not without great use; and indeed it bears directly upon ourindividual state: our actions and our feelings having often a closeconnexion with, general church matters; and these actions and feelingsbeing necessarily good or bad, according to the soundness of ourjudgment on the matter which occasions them. Besides which, it seems tome that general views, rather than what relates to particular faults, may be with most propriety dwelt on by those who have no directconnexion with the congregation which they are addressing. 

In the first place, then, whenever we think of the state and prospectsof Christ's church, whether for good or for evil, it is most desirablethat we should rightly understand our own relations to it. "The vineyardof the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel;" or, in the language of theNew Testament, "Christ is the vine, and we are the branches. " Mencontinually seem to forget that they are members of the church;citizens, to use St. Paul's expression, of Christ's kingdom, as much asever they are citizens of their earthly country. But they speak of thechurch as they might speak of any useful institution or society in theirneighbourhood, whose object they approved of, and which they were gladto encourage, but without becoming members of it, or identifyingthemselves with its success or failure. For example, they speak of thechurch as they might speak of the universities, which indeed areinstitutions of great importance to the whole country, but yet they aremanifestly distinct from the mass of the community: they have their ownmembers, their own laws, and their own government, with which, people ingeneral have nothing to do. And so many persons speak and feel of thechurch, regarding it evidently as consisting only of the clergy: ourcommon language, no doubt, helping this confusion, because we oftenspeak of a man's going into the church when he enters into holy orders, just as if ordination were the admission into the church, and notbaptism. Now, if the clergy did indeed constitute the church, then itwould very much resemble the condition of the universities: for it wouldthen be indeed a society very important to the welfare of the wholecountry, but yet one that was completely distinct, and which had itsmembers, laws, and government quite apart: for men in general do notbelong to the clergy, nor are they concerned directly in such canons asrelate to the peculiar business of the clergy, nor does the bishop'ssuperintendence, as commonly exercised, extend at all to them. But Goddesigned for his church far more than that it should contain one orderof men only, or that it should comprise commonly but one singleindividual in a parish, preaching to and teaching the rest of theinhabitants, like a missionary amongst a population of heathens. Look atSt. Paul's account of the church of Corinth, in the 12th chapter of his1st epistle to the Corinthians, and see if any two things can be moredifferent than his notion of a church, and that which many people seemto entertain amongst us. Compare the living body there described, madeup of so many various members, each having its separate office, yet eachuseful to and needed by the others and by the body, --and our notion of aparish committed to the charge of a single individual: as if all themanifold gifts which the church requires could by possibility becomprised in the person of any one Christian; as if the whole burdenwere to rest upon his shoulders, and the other inhabitants might regardthe welfare of the church as his concern only, and not theirs. 

But not only is the church too often confined in men's notions to thesingle class or profession of the clergy, but it has been narrowed stillfarther by the practical extinction of one of the orders of the clergyitself. Where the laity have come to regard their own share in theconcerns of the church as next to nothing, the order of deacons, forming, as it were, a link between the clergy and the laity, becomesproportionably of still greater importance. The business of the deacons, as we well know, was in an especial manner to look after the relief ofthe poor; and by combining this charge with the power of baptizing, ofreading the Scriptures, and of preaching also, when authorized by thebishop, they exhibited the peculiar character of Christianity, that ofsanctifying the business of this world by doing everything in the nameof the Lord Jesus. No church, so far as we know, certainly no church inany town, existed without its deacons: they were as essential to itscompleteness as its bishop and its presbyters. 

Take any one of our large towns now, and what do we find? A bishop, notof that single town only, but of fifty others besides: one presbyter ineach, church, and no deacons! Practically, and according to its propercharacter, the order of deacons is extinct; and those who now bear thename are most commonly found exercising the functions of presbyters;that is, instead of acting as the assistants of a presbyter, they areoften the sole ministers of their respective parishes; they alonebaptize; alone offer up the prayers of the church, alone preach theword: nothing marks their original character, except their inability toadminister the communion; and thus, by a strange anomaly, the church insuch parishes is actually left without any power of celebrating itshighest act, that of commemorating the death, of Christ in the Lord'ssupper; and if it were not for another great evil, the unfrequentcelebration of the Communion, the system could not go on: because thedeacon would be so often obliged to apply to other ministers to performthat duty for him, that the inconvenience, as well as the unfitness, ofthe actual practice, would be manifest to every one. 

Again, what has become of church discipline? That it has perished, weall well know: but its loss is the consequence of that fatal error whichmakes the clergy alone constitute the church. It is quite certain thatmen will not allow the members of a single profession to exercise theauthority of society; to create and define offences; to determine theirpunishment, and to be the judges of each particular offender. As long asthe clergy are supposed to constitute the whole church, churchdiscipline would be nothing but priestly tyranny. And yet the absence ofdiscipline is a most grievous evil; and there is no doubt that, althoughit must be vain when opposed to public opinion, yet, when it is theexpression of that opinion, there is nothing which it cannot achieve. But public opinion cannot enforce church discipline now, because thatdiscipline would not be now the expression of the voice of the church, but simply of a small part of the church, of the clergy only. 

So deeply has this fatal error of regarding the clergy as the churchextended itself, that at this moment a man's having been baptized is nosecurity for his being so much as a believer in the truth ofChristianity: no matter that he was made in his baptism a member ofChrist, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven; nomatter that at a more advanced period of his life he was confirmed, andentered into the church by his own act and deed; still the churchbelongs to the clergy; they may hold such and such, language, and teachsuch and such doctrine; it would be very improper in them to dootherwise; and he has a great respect for the church, and wouldstrenuously resist all its enemies, but truly, as for his own belief andhis own conduct, these he will guide according to other principles, asimperative upon him as the rules of the church upon churchmen. Wellindeed, do such men bear witness that they are not of the church, indeed; that their portion is not with God's people; that Christ is nottheir Saviour, nor the Holy Spirit their Comforter and Guide: but whatblasphemy is it to call themselves friends of the church! as if Christ'schurch could have any friends except God and his holy angels: the churchhas its living and redeemed members; it may have those who are cravingto be admitted within its shelter, being convinced that God is in it ofa truth; but beyond these he who is not with it is against it; he who isnot Christ's servant, serves his enemy. 

Farther, it is this same deadly error which is the root and substance ofpopery. There is no one abuse of the Romish system which may not betraced to the original and very early error of drawing a widedistinction between the clergy and the laity; of investing the former insuch a peculiar degree with the attributes of the church that at lastthey retained them almost exclusively. In other words, the great evil ofpopery is, that it has destroyed the Christian church, and hassubstituted a priesthood in its room. This is the fault of the Greekchurch, almost as much as of the Roman; and the peculiar tenet of theRomish church, that the supreme government is vested in one singlemember of this priesthood, the Bishop of Rome, is in some respectsrather an improvement of the system, than an aggravation of it. Foreven an absolute monarchy is a less evil than an absolute aristocracy;and an infallible Pope is no greater corruption of Christ's truth, thanan infallible general council. The real evils of the system are of a farolder date than the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and exist in placeswhere that supremacy is resolutely denied. And if we attend to themcarefully, we shall see that these evils have especially affected theChristian church as distinguished from the Christian religion. It isworth our while to attend to this distinction; for the Christianreligion and the Christian church together, and neither without theother, form the perfect idea of Christianity. NOW, by the Christianreligion, I mean the revelation of what God has done or will do for usin Christ; the great doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, theatonement, the resurrection, the presence of the Holy Spirit amongst us, and our own resurrection hereafter, to an existence of eternal happinessor misery. And these truths, if revealed to any single person living inan uninhabited island, might be abundantly sufficient for his salvation;if God disposed his heart to receive them, and to believe themearnestly, they would be the means of his overcoming his corrupt nature, and of passing from death unto life. But because men do not generallylive alone, but with one another; and because they cannot but greatlyhinder, or help each other by their mutual influence, therefore theChristian church was instituted for the purpose of spreading andfurthering the growth of the Christian religion in men's hearts; and itsvarious ministeries, its sacraments, its services and festivals, and itsdiscipline were all designed with that object. And it is all these whichpopery has perverted; popery, whether in the Roman church or in theGreek church, or even in the Protestant church, for it has existed moreor less in all. But even in the Roman church, where the perversion hasbeen most complete, it has comparatively affected but little the truthsof the Christian religion; all the great doctrines, which I mentioned, are held as by ourselves; the three creeds, the Apostles' creed, theNicene, and the Athanasian, are used by the Roman church no less than byour own. Thus it often happens that we can read with great edificationthe devotional works of Roman Catholic writers, because in such worksthe individual stands apart from the Christian church, and is concernedonly with the Christian religion: they show how one single soul, havinglearnt the tidings of redemption with faith, and thankfulness, improvesthem to its own salvation. But the moment that he goes out of hiscloset, and begins to speak and act amongst other men, then thecorruption of popery shows itself. The Christian church was designed tohelp each individual towards a more perfect knowledge and love of God, by the counsel and example of his brethren, and by the practices which, he was to observe in their society. But the corrupt church exercises itsinfluence for evil; it omits all the benefits to be derived from aliving society, and puts forward, in their place, the observance ofrites and ceremonies; knowledge and love are no longer looked to as theperfections of a Christian, but ignorance and blind obedience; not themortifying all our evil passions universally, but the keeping themchained up, as it were under priestly control, to be let loose at thepriest's bidding, against those whom he calls the church's enemies; thatglorious church which he has destroyed and converted it into an idoltemple, in that he, as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himselfthat he is God. 

To resist this great and monstrous evil, we must not exclaim against itunder one of its forms only, even although that form exhibit it, indeed, in its most complete deformity; but we must strive against itunder all its forms, remembering that its essence consists in puttingthe clergy in the place of the church; and taking from the great mass ofthe church their proper share in its government, in its offices, andtherefore in its benefits, and in the sense of its solemnresponsibilities. We speak often of church extension, meaning by thisterm the building new places of public worship, and the appointingadditional ministers to preach the word and administer the sacraments. And no doubt such church extension is a good and blessed work, for itbrings the knowledge of the truths of Christ's religion, and the benefitof his ordinances, the sacraments, within the reach of many who mightotherwise have been without them. But it were a yet truer and moreblessed church extension which should add to the building and the singleminister, the real living church itself, with all its manifold officesand ministries, with its pure discipline, with its holy and loving senseof brotherhood. Without this, Christ will still, indeed, as heretofore, lay his hands on some few sick folk and heal them; his grace will conveythe truths of his gospel to individual souls, and they will believe andbe saved. But the fulfilment of prophecy; the triumph of Christ'skingdom; the changing an evil world into a world redeemed; this can onlybe done by a revival of the Christian church in its power, the livingtemple of the Holy Ghost, which, visibly to all mankind, in the wisdomand holiness of its members, showed that God was in the midst of it. Itmay be that this is a fond hope, which we may not expect to seerealized; but looking on the one hand to the strong and triumphantlanguage of prophecy, I know not how any hope of the advancement ofChrist's kingdom can be more bold than God's word will warrant: and onthe other, tracing the past history of the church, its gradualcorruption may be deduced distinctly from one early and deadly mischief, which has destroyed its efficacy; so that, if this mischief can beremoved, and the church become such as Christ designed it to be, it doesnot seem presumptuous to hope that his appointed instrument, workingaccording to his will, should be enabled to obtain the full blessings ofhis promise. 

And now, in conclusion, if we ask, what should follow from all that hasbeen said? what it should lead us all, if it be true, to feel or todo?--the answer is, that considerations of this sort are not such aslead at once to some distinct change in our conduct; to the laying asidesome favourite sin, or the practising some long neglected duty. And yetthe thoughts which I have endeavoured to suggest to your minds may, ifdwelt upon, lead, in the end, to a very considerable alteration, both inour feelings and in our practice. First of all, it is not a littlematter to be convinced practically, that it is baptism, and notordination, which makes us members of the church; that it is by sharingin the communion of Christ's body and blood, not by being admitted intothe ministry, that the privileges and graces of Christ's church areconferred upon us. And most wisely, and most truly, does our Churchseparate ordination from the two Christian sacraments, as an institutionfar less solemn, and conferring graces far less important: for thedifference between a Christian and a Christian minister is but one ofoffice, not of moral or spiritual advancement, not of greater or lessnearness to God. One is our master, even Christ; and all we arebrethren. Words which certainly do not imply that all members of thechurch are to have the same office, or that all offices are of equalimportance and dignity; but which do imply, most certainly, that anyattempt to convert the ministry into a priesthoood, that is, torepresent them as standing, in any matter, as mediators between Christand his people, or as being essentially the channel through which hisgrace must pass to his church, is directly in opposition to him; and isno better than idolatry. It was by baptism that we have all beenengrafted into Christ's body; it is by the communion of his body andblood that we continue to abide in him; it is in his whole body, in hischurch, and not in its ministers, as distinct from his church, that hisHoly Spirit abides. 

Thus feeling that we each are members of the church, that it is ourhighest country, to which we are bound with a far deeper love than toour earthly country, is not its welfare our welfare; its triumph ourtriumph; its failures our shame? We shall see, then, that churchquestions are not such merely, or principally, as concern the payment ofthe clergy, or their discipline, but all questions in which God's gloryand man's sins or duties are concerned; all questions in the decision ofwhich, there is a moral good and evil; a grieving of Christ's Spirit, ora conformity to him. And in such questions as concern the church, in themore narrow and common sense of the word, seeing that we are all membersof the church, we should not neglect them, as the concern of others, buttake an interest in them, and act in them, so far as we haveopportunity, as in a matter which most nearly concerns ourselves. Wefeel that we have an interest in our country's affairs, although we arenot members of the government or of the legislature; we have our part toperform, without at all overstepping the modesty of private life: and itis the constant influence of public opinion, and the active interesttaken by the country at large in its own concerns, which, in spite ofoccasional delusion or violence, is mainly instrumental in preserving tous the combined vigour and order of our political constitution. And so, if we took an equal interest in the affairs of our divine commonwealth, our Christian church, and endeavoured as eagerly to promote every thingwhich tended to its welfare, and to put down and prevent every thingwhich might work it mischief, then the efforts of the clergy to advanceChrist's kingdom would be incalculably aided, while there would then beno danger of our investing them with the duties and responsibilitieswhich belong properly to the whole church; they could not then havedominion over our faith, nor by possibility become lords over God'sheritage, but would be truly ensamples to the flock, the helpers of ourjoy, the glory of Christ. 

LECTURE XXXIX. 

 * * * * *

COLOSSIANS iii. 17. 

_Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him_. 

This, like the other general rules of the gospel, is familiar enough tous all in its own words; but we are very apt to forbear making theapplication of it. In fact, he who were to apply it perfectly would be aperfect Christian: for a life of which every word and deed were said anddone in the name of the Lord Jesus, would be a life indeed worthy of thechildren of God, and such as they lead in heaven; it would leave no roomfor sin to enter. The art of our enemy has been therefore to make usleave this command of the apostle's in its general sense, and avoidexploring, so to speak, all the wisdom contained within it. Certainactions of our lives, our religious services, the more solemntransactions in which we are engaged, we are willing to do in Christ'sname; but that multitude of common words and ordinary actions by whichmore than sixty-nine out of our seventy years are filled, we take awayfrom our Lord's dominion, under the foolish, and hypocritical pretencethat they are too trifling and too familiar to be mixed up with thethought of things so solemn. 

This is one fault, and by far the most common. We make Christ's servicethe business only of a very small portion of our lives; we hallow onlya very small part of our words and actions by doing them in his name. Unlike our Lord's own parable, where he compares Christianity to leavenhidden in the three measures of meal till the whole was leavened, thepractice rather has been to keep the leaven confined to one littlecorner of the mass of meal; to take care that it should not spread so asto leaven the whole mass; to keep our hearts still in the state of theworld when Christ visited it--"the light shineth in darkness, and thedarkness comprehended it not;" that is, it did not take the light intoitself so as to be wholly enlightened: the light shone, and there was abright space immediately around it; but beyond there was a blackness ofdarkness into which it vainly strove to penetrate. 

On the other hand there has been, though, more rarely, a fault of theopposite sort. Men have said that they were in all their actions ofordinary life doing Christ's will, that they endeavoured always to bepromoting some good object; and that the peculiar services of religion, as they are called, were useless, inasmuch as in spirit they areworshipping God always. This is a great error; because, as a matter offact, it is false. We may safely say that no man ever did keep his heartright with God in his ordinary life, that no one ever became one withChrist, and Christ with him, without seeking Christ where he revealshimself, it may not be more really, but to our weakness far moresensibly, than in the common business of daily life. We may be happy ifwe can find Christ there, after we have long sought him and found him inthe way of his own ordinances, in prayer, and in his holy communion. Even Christ himself, when on earth, though his whole day was undeniablyspent in doing the will of his heavenly father, --although to himdoubtless God was ever present in the commonest acts no less than in themost solemn, --yet even he, after a day spent in all good works, desireda yet more direct intercourse with God, and was accustomed to spend alarge portion of the night in retirement and prayer. 

Without this, indeed, we shall most certainly not say and do all in thename of the Lord Jesus; much more shall we be in danger of forgettinghim altogether. But supposing that we are not neglectful of ourreligious duties, in the common sense of the term, that we do pray andread the Scriptures, and partake of Christ's communion, yet it willoften happen that we do not connect our prayers, nor our reading, norour communion, with many of the common portions of our lives; that thereare certain things in which we take great interest, which, notwithstanding, we leave, as it were, wholly without the range of thelight of Christ's Spirit. There is a story told that, in times andcountries where there prevailed the deepest ignorance, some who came tobe baptized into the faith of Christ, converted from their heathenstate, not in reality but only in name, were accustomed to leave theirright arm unbaptized, with the notion that this arm, not being pledgedto Christ's service, might wreak upon their enemies those works ofhatred and revenge which in baptism they had promised to renounce. It istoo much to say that something like this unbaptized right arm is stillto be met with amongst us--that men too often leave some of their verymost important concerns, what they call by way of eminence theirbusiness--their management of their own money affairs, and their conductin public matters--wholly out of the control of Christ's law?

Now at this very time public matters are engaging the thoughts of agreat many persons all over the kingdom: and are not only engaging theirthoughts, but are also become a practical matter, in which they areacting with great earnestness. Is it nothing that there should be somuch, interest felt, so much pains taken, and yet that neither should bedone in the name of the Lord Jesus, nor to the glory of God? It cannotbe unsuited to the present season to dwell a little on this subject, which has nothing whatever to do with men's differences of opinion, butrelates only to their acting, whatever be their political opinions, onChristian principles, and in a Christian spirit. 

First, consider what we pray for in the prayer which we have been usingevery week for the high court of parliament: we pray to God, that "allthings may be so ordered and settled by the endeavours of parliament, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth, and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for allgenerations. " These great blessings we beg of God to secure to us and toour children through the endeavours of parliament; if, therefore, we areany ways concerned in fixing who the persons are to be who are tocompose this parliament, it is plain that there is put into our bands ahigh privilege, if you will; but along with it, as with all otherprivileges, a most solemn responsibility. 

But, if it be a solemn responsibility in the sight of God and of Christ, surely the act of voting, which many think so lightly of, and which manymore consider a thing wholly political and worldly, becomes, indeed, avery important Christian duty, not to be discharged hastily orselfishly, in blind prejudice or passion, from self-interest, or in merecareless good nature and respect of persons; but deliberately, seriously, calmly, and, so far as we can judge our deceitful hearts, purely; not without prayer to Him who giveth wisdom liberally to thosethat ask it, that he will be pleased to guide them aright, to his ownglory, and to the good of his people. 

Do I say that if we were to approach this duty in this spirit, and withsuch prayers, we should all agree in the same opinion, and all think thesame of the same men? No, by no means; we might still greatly differ;but we should, at least, have reason to respect one another, and to bein charity with one another; and if we all earnestly desired and prayedto be directed to God's glory, and the public good, God, I doubt not, would give us all those ends which we so purely desired, although in ourestimate of the earthly means and instruments by which they were to begained, we had honestly differed from one another. 

Now, supposing that we had this conviction, that what we were going todo concerned the glory of God and the good of his people, and that weapproached it therefore seriously as a Christian duty, yet it may bewell that many men might feel themselves deficient in knowledge; theymight not understand the great questions at issue; they might honestlydoubt how they could best fulfil the trust committed to them. I knowthat the most ignorant man will feel no such hesitation if he is goingto give his vote from fancy, or from prejudice, or from interest; theseare motives which determine our conduct quickly and decisively. But ifwe regard our vote as a talent for which we must answer before God thatwe may well be embarrassed by a consciousness of ignorance; we may wellbe anxious to get some guidance from others, if we cannot find it inourselves. Here, then, is the place for authority, --for relying, thatis, on the judgment of others, when we feel that we cannot judge forourselves. But is their no room for the exercise of much good sense andfairness in ourselves as to the choice of the person by whose judgmentwe mean to be guided? Are we so little accustomed to estimate ourneighbours' characters rightly, as to be unable to determine whom we mayconsult with advantage? Surely if their be any one whom we have proved, in the affairs of common life, to be at once honest and sensible, tosuch an one we should apply when we are at a loss as to public matters. If there is such an one amongst our own relations or personal friends, we should go to him in preference: if not, we can surely find one suchamongst our neighbours: and here the authority of such of our neighboursas have a direct connexion with us, if we have had reason to respecttheir judgment and their principles, may be properly preferred to thatof indifferent persons; the authority of a master, or an employer, or ofour minister, or of our landlord, may and ought, under suchcircumstances, to have a great and decisive influence over us. 

On the other hand, supposing again that we have this strong sense of thegreat responsibility in the sight of God of every man who has theprivilege of a vote, we shall be exceedingly careful not to tempt him tosin by fulfilling this duty ill. Nothing can be more natural or moreproper than that those who have strong impressions themselves as to theline to be followed in public matters, should be desirous of persuadingothers to think as they do; every man who loves truth and righteousnessmust wish that what he himself earnestly believes to be true andrighteous, should be loved by others also; but the highest truth, ifprofessed by one who believes it not in his heart, is to him a lie, andhe sins greatly by professing it. Let us try as much as we will toconvince our neighbours; but let us beware of influencing their conduct, when we fail in influencing their convictions: he who bribes orfrightens his neighbour into doing an act which no good man would do forreward or from fear, is tempting his neighbour to sin; he is assistingto lower and to harden his conscience, --to make him act for the favouror from the fear of man, instead of for the favour or from the fear ofGod; and if this be a sin in him, it is a double sin in us to tempt himto it. Nor let us deceive ourselves by talking of the greatness of thestake at issue; that God's glory and the public good are involved in theresult of the contest, and that therefore we must do all in our power towin it. Let us by all means do all that we can do without sin; but letus not dare to do evil that good may come, for that is the part ofunbelief; it becomes those who will not trust God with the government ofthe world, but would fain guide its course themselves. Here, indeed, ourLord's command does apply to us, that we be not anxious; "Which of youby taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?" How little can wesee of the course of Providence! how little can we be sure that what wejudged for the best in public affairs may not lead to mischief! Butthese things are in God's hand; our business is to keep ourselves andour neighbours from sin, and not to do or encourage in others any thingthat is evil, however great the advantages which we may fancy likely toflow from that evil to the cause even of the highest good. 

There is no immediate prospect, indeed, that we in this particularcongregation shall be called upon to practise the duty of which I havebeen now speaking; and, indeed, it is for that very reason that I coulddwell on the subject more freely. But what is going on all around us, what we hear of, read of, and talk of so much as we are many of uslikely to do in the next week or two about political matters, _that_ weshould be accustomed to look upon as Christians: we should by thatstandard try our common views and language about it, and, if it may be, correct them: that so hereafter, if we be called upon to act, we mayact, according to the Apostle's teaching, in the name of our Lord Jesus. And I am quite sure if we do so think and so act, although ourdifferences of opinion might remain just the same, yet the change inourselves, and I verily believe in the blessings which God would giveus, would be more than we can well believe; and a general election, instead of calling forth, as it now does, a host of unchristian passionsand practices, would be rather an exercise of Christian judgment, andforbearance, and faith, and charity; promoting, whatever was the merepolitical result, the glory of God, advancing Christ's kingdom, and thegood of this, as it would be then truly called, Christian nation. 

NOTES. 

 * * * * *

NOTE A. P. 5. 

"_But our path is not backwards but onwards_"--This thought is expressedvery beautifully in lines as wise and true as they are poetical:

 "Grieve not for these: nor dare lament That thus from childhood's thoughts we roam: Not backward are our glances bent, But forward to our Father's home. Eternal growth has no such fears, But freshening still with seasons past, The old man clogs its earlier years, And simple childhood comes the last. "

_Burbridge's Poems_, p. 309. 

 * * * * *

NOTE B. P. 102. 

"_Some may know the story of that German nobleman_, " &c. --The Baron vonCanitz. He lived in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and wasengaged in the service of the electors of Brandenburg, both of the greatelector and his successor. He was the author of several hymns, one ofwhich is of remarkable beauty, as may be seen in the followingtranslation, for the greatest part of which I am indebted to thekindness of a friend: but the language of the original, in severalplaces, cannot be adequately translated in English. 

 Come, my soul, thou must be waking-- Now is breaking O'er the earth another day. Come to Him who made this splendour See thou render All thy feeble powers can pay. 

 From the stars thy course be learning: Dimly burning 'Neath the sun their light grows pale: So let all that sense delighted While benighted From God's presence fade and fail. 

 Lo! how all of breath partaking, Gladly waking, Hail the sun's enlivening light! Plants, whose life mere sap doth nourish, Rise and flourish, When he breaks the shades of night. 

 Thou too hail the light returning, -- Ready burning Be the incense of thy powers;-- For the night is safely ended: God hath tended With His care thy helpless hours. 

 Pray that He may prosper ever Each endeavour When thine aim is good and true; But that He may ever thwart thee, And convert thee, When thou evil wouldst pursue. 

 Think that He thy ways beholdeth-- He unfoldeth Every fault that lurks within; Every stain of shame gloss'd over Can discover, And discern each deed of sin. 

 Fetter'd to the fleeting hours, All our powers, Vain and brief, are borne away; Time, my soul, thy ship is steering, Onward veering, To the gulph of death a prey. 

 May'st thou then on life's last morrow, Free from sorrow, Pass away in slumber sweet; And released from death's dark sadness, Rise in gladness, That far brighter Sun to greet. 

 Only God's free gifts abuse not, His light refuse not, But still His Spirit's voice obey; Soon shall joy thy brow be wreathing, Splendour breathing Fairer than the fairest day. 

 If aught of care this morn oppress thee, To Him address thee, Who, like the sun, is good to all: He gilds the mountain tops, the while His gracious smile Will on the humblest valley fall. 

 Round the gifts His bounty show'rs, Walls and tow'rs Girt with flames thy God shall rear: Angel legions to defend thee Shall attend thee, Hosts whom Satan's self shall fear. 

 * * * * *

NOTE C. P. 122. 

"_But, once admit a single exception, and the infallible virtue of therule ceases_. "--Thus the famous Canon of Vincentius Lirinensis is liketradition itself, always either superfluous or insufficient. Takenliterally, it is true and worthless;--because what _all_ have asserted, _always_, and in _all places_, supposing of course that the means ofjudging were in their power, may be assumed to be some indisputableaxiom, such as never will be disputed any more than it has been disputedhitherto. But take it with any allowance, and then it is of no use insettling a question: for what _most_ men have asserted, _most commonly_, and in _most places_, has a certain _à priori_ probability, it is true, but by no means such as may not be outweighed by probabilities on theother side; for the extreme improbability consists not in the prevalenceof error amongst millions, or for centuries, or over wholecontinents, --but in its being absolutely universal, so universal, thattruth could not find a single witness at any time or in any country. Butthe single witness is enough to "justify the ways of God, " and reduceswhat otherwise would have been a monstrous triumph of evil to thecharacter of a severe trial of our faith, severe indeed as the trials ofan evil world will be, but no more than a trial such as, with God'sgrace, may be overcome. 

 * * * * *

NOTE D. P. 189. 

_"It was an admirable definition of that which excites laughter, "_&c. --[Greek: To geloion apurtaepa ti chai aiochos auodnnoy chai onphthartichon oion enthus to geloion prosopon aischron ti chaidieotruppenon anen odunaes]--_Aristotle, Poetic, _ ii. 

 * * * * *

NOTE E. P. 245. 

"_I would endeavour just to touch upon some of the purposes for whichthe Scripture tells us that Christ died_. "--The Collects for EasterSunday and the Sundays just before it and after it, illustrate theenumeration here given. The Collect for the Sunday next before Easterspeaks of Christ's death only as an "example of his great humility. " TheCollect for Easter-day speaks of the resurrection, and connects it withour spiritual resurrection, as does also the Collect for the firstSunday after Easter. But the collect for the Second Sunday after Easterspeaks of Christ as being at once our sacrifice for sin and our exampleof godly life, --a sacrifice to be regarded with entire thankfulness, andan example to be daily followed. 

 * * * * *

NOTE F. P. 282. 

"_Such also was to be the state of the Christian Church after our Lord'sascension_. "--And therefore, as I think, St. Peter applies to theChristians of Asia Minor the very terms applied to the Jews living inAssyria or in Egypt; he addresses them as [Greek: parepidaemoisdiasporas], (1 Peter i. 1, ) that is, as strangers and sojourners, scattered up and down in a country that was not properly their own, andliving in a sort of banishment from their true home. That the words arenot addressed to Jewish Christians, and therefore are not to beunderstood in their simple historical sense, seems evident from thesecond chapter of the Epistle, verses 9, 10, and iv. 2, 3. 

 * * * * *

NOTE G. P. 315. 

"_Not only an outward miracle, but the changed circumstances of thetimes may speak God's will no less clearly than a miracle_, " &c. --What Ihave here said does not at all go beyond what has been said on the samesubject by Hooker: "Laws, though both ordained of God himself, and theend for which they were ordained continuing, may, notwithstanding, cease, if by alteration of persons or times they be found insufficientto attain unto that end. In which respect why may we not presume thatGod doth even call for such change or alteration as the very conditionof things themselves doth make necessary?. .. In this case, therefore, men do not presume to change God's ordinance, but they yield thereunto, requiring itself to be changed. "--_Ecclesiastical Polity_, b. Iii. § 10. 

 * * * * *

NOTE H. P. 320. 

_"Nor is it less strange that any should ever have been afraid of theirunderstandings, and should have sought goodness through prejudice, andblindness, and folly_. "--For some time past the words "Rationalism" and"Rationalistic" have been freely used as terms of reproach by writers onreligious subjects; the 73d No. Of the "Tracts for the Times" isentitled, "On the introduction of Rationalistic Principles intoReligion, " and a whole chapter in Mr. Gladstone's late work on ChurchPrinciples is headed "Rationalism. " Yet we still want a clear definitionof the thing signified by this name. The Tract for the Times says, "Torationalize, is to ask for _reasons_ out of place; to ask improperly howwe are to _account_ for certain things; to be unwilling to believe themunless they can be accounted for, i. E. Referred to something else as acause, to some existing system, as harmonizing with them, or taking themup into itself. .. . It is characterised by two peculiarities;--its loveof systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience, onthe evidence of sense. "--P. 2. Mr. Gladstone says more generally, "Rationalism is commonly, at least in this country, taken to be thereduction of Christian _doctrine_ to the standard and measure of thehuman understanding. "--P. 37. But neither of these definitions willinclude all the arguments and statements which have been called byvarious writers "rationalistic;" and while the terms used are thusvague, they are often applied very indiscriminately, and the tendency ofthis use of them is to depreciate the exercise of the intellectualfaculties generally. The subject seems to deserve fuller considerationthan it has yet received; there is a real evil which the termRationalism is meant to denounce; but it has not been clearlyapprehended, and what is good has sometimes been confounded with it, anddenounced under the same name. 

I cannot pretend to discuss the subject fully in a mere note, even if Iwere otherwise competent to do it. But one or two points may be noticed, as likely to assist the inquiry, wherever it is worthily entered on. 

1st. It is important to bear in mind the distinction which Coleridgeenforces so earnestly between the understanding and the reason. I do notknow whether Mr. Gladstone, in the passage quoted above, uses the word"understanding" as synonymous with reason, or in that stricter sense inwhich Coleridge employs it. But the writer of the Tract seems to alludeto the stricter sense, when he calls it a characteristic of rationalism"to base its system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. "If this be the case, then it would seem that rationalism is theappealing to the decision of the understanding in points where thedecision properly belongs not to the understanding, but to the reason. This is a great fault, and one to which all persons who belong to thesensualist school in philosophy, as opposed to the idealist school, would be more or less addicted. But then, this fault consists not in anover-estimating of man's intellectual nature generally, but in theexalting one part of it unduly, to the injury of another part; indeferring to the understanding, rather than to the reason. 

2d. Faith and reason are often invidiously contrasted with each other, as if they were commonly described in Scripture as antagonists; whereasfaith is more properly opposed to sight, or to lust, being, in fact, avery high exercise of the pure reason; inasmuch as we believe truthswhich our senses do not teach us, and which our passions would have us, therefore, reject, because those truths are taught by Him in whom reasonrecognises its own author, and the infallible source of all truth. 

3d. It were better to oppose reason to passion than to faith; for it maybe safely said, that he who neglects his reason, so far as he doesneglect it, does not lead a life of faith afterwards, but a life ofpassion. He does not draw nearer to God, but to the brutes, or rather tothe devils; for his passions cannot be the mere instinctive appetites ofthe brute, but derive from the wreck of his intellectual powers, whichhe cannot utterly destroy, just so much of a higher nature that they aresins, and not instincts, belonging to the malignity of diabolic nature, rather than to the mere negative evil of the nature of brutes. 

4th. Faith may be described as reason leaning upon God. Without God, reason is either overpowered by sense and understanding, and, in amanner, overgrown, so that it cannot comprehend its proper truths; or, being infinite, it cannot discover all the truths which concern it, andtherefore needs a farther revelation to enlighten it. But with God'sgrace strengthening it to assert its supremacy over sense andunderstanding, and communicating to it what of itself it could not havediscovered, it then having gained strength and light not its own, anddoing and seeing consciously by God's help, becomes properly faith. 

5th. Faith without reason, is not properly faith, but mere powerworship; and power worship may be devil worship; for it is reason whichentertains the idea of God--an idea essentially made up of truth andgoodness, no less than of power. A sign of power exhibited to the sensesmight, through them, dispose the whole man to acknowledge it as divine;yet power in itself is not divine, it may be devilish. But when reasonrecognises that, along with this power, there exist also wisdom andgoodness, then it perceives that here is God; and the worship which, without reason, might have been idolatry, being now according toreason is faith. 

6th. If this were considered, men would be more careful of speakingdisparagingly of reason, seeing that it is the necessary condition ofthe existence of faith. It is quite true, that when we have attained tofaith, it supersedes reason; we walk by sunlight, rather than bymoonlight; following the guidance of infinite reason, instead of finite. But how are we to attain to faith? in other words, how can wedistinguish God's voice from the voice of evil? for we must distinguishit to be God's voice before we can have faith in it. We distinguish it, and can distinguish it no otherwise, by comparing it with that idea ofGod which reason intuitively enjoins, the gift of reason being God'soriginal revelation of himself to man. Now, if the voice which comes tous from the unseen world agree not with this idea, we have no choice butto pronounce it not to be God's voice; for no signs of power, inconfirmation of it, can alone prove it to be God. God is not power only, but power, and truth, and holiness; and the existence of even infinitepower, does not necessarily involve in it truth and holiness also; elsethe notion of the world being governed by an evil being would be no morethan a contradiction in terms; and the horrible strife of the twoprinciples of Manicheism would be a mere matter of indifference; for ifpower alone constitutes God, whichever principle triumphed over theother, would become God by the very fact of its victory; and thustriumphant evil would be good. 

7th. Reason, then, is the mean whereby we attain to faith, and escapethe devil worship of idolatry; but the understanding is not a necessarycondition of faith, and very often impedes it; for the understandinghaving for its basis the reports of sense and experience, has no directway of arriving at things invisible, and rather shrinks back from thatworld with which it is in no way familiar. It has a work to do in regardto revelation, and an important work; but divine things not being itsproper matter, its work concerning them must be subordinate, and itstendency is always to fall back from the invisible to the visible, --frommatters of faith to matters of experience. Its work, with respect torevelation, is this--that it should inquire into the truth of theoutward signs of it; which outward signs being necessarily thingsvisible and sensible, fall within its province of judgment. Thusunderstanding judges the external witnesses of a revelation: if miraclesbe alleged, it is the business of understanding to ascertain the fact oftheir occurrence; if a book claim to be the record of a revelation, itbelongs to the understanding to make out the origin of this book, thetime when it was written, who were its authors, and what is the firstand grammatical meaning of its language. Or, again, if any men professto be the depositaries of divine truth, by an extraordinary commissionfrom God, the understanding, being familiar with man's nature andmotives, can judge of their credibility--can see whether there are anymarks of folly in them, or of dishonesty, or whether they are at oncesensible and honest. And in all such matters, the prerogative of theunderstanding to judge is not to be questioned; for all such points arestrictly within its dominion; and our Lord's words are of universalapplication, that we should render to Cæsar the things which areCæsar's, no less than we should render to God the things that are God's. 

Faith may exist, as I said, without the action of the understanding, butnever without that of the reason. It may exist independent of theunderstanding, because faith in God is the natural result of the idea ofGod: and that idea belongs to the reason, and the understanding is notconcerned with it. But when a special revelation has been given us, through human instruments; when the understanding is called in tocertify the particular fact, that in such and such particular persons, writings, or events, God has made himself manifest in an extraordinarymanner; it is the human instrumentality which requires the judgment ofthe understanding; the bringing in of human characters, and sensiblefacts, which are matters of sense and experience; and, therefore, it ismere ignorance when Christians speak slightingly of the outward andhistorical evidences of Christianity, and indulge in very misplacedcontempt for Paley and others who have worked out the historical proofof it. Such persons may observe, if they will, that where the historicalevidence has not been listened to, there a belief in Christianity, properly so called, is wanting. Living examples might, I think, be namedof men whose reason entirely acknowledges the internal proofs of adivine origin which are contained in the Christian doctrines, but whoseunderstandings are not satisfied as to the facts of the Christianhistory, and particularly as to the fact of our Lord's resurrection. Such men are a remarkable contrast to those whose understandings arefully satisfied of the historical truth of our Lord's resurrection, butwho are indifferent to, or actually deny, those doctrinal truths ofwhich another power than the understanding must be the warrant. It isimportant to observe, therefore, that in a revelation involving, as anessential part of it, certain historical facts, there is necessarily acall for the judgment of the understanding, although in religious faithsimply the understanding may have no place. 

8th. Now, then, the clearest notion which can be given of rationalismwould, I think, be this: that it is the abuse of the understanding insubjects where the divine and the human, so to speak, are intermingled. Of human things the understanding can judge, of divine things itcannot;--and thus, where the two are mixed together, its inability tojudge of the one part makes it derange the proportions of both, and thejudgment of the whole is vitiated. For example, the understandingexamines a miraculous history; it judges truly of what I may call thehuman part of the case; that is to say, of the rarity of miracles, --ofthe fallibility of human testimony, --of the proneness of most minds toexaggeration, --and of the critical arguments affecting the genuinenessor the date of the narrative itself. But it forgets the divine part, namely, the power and providence of God, that He is really ever presentamongst us, and that the spiritual world, which exists invisibly allaround us, may conceivably, and by no means impossibly, exist, at sometimes and to some persons, even visibly. These considerations, which theunderstanding is ignorant of, would often modify our judgment as to thehuman parts of the case. Things not impossible in themselves arebelieved upon sufficient testimony; and with all the carelessness andexaggeration of historians, the mass of history is notwithstandinggenerally credible. Again, with regard to the history of the OldTestament, our judgment of the human part in it requires to beconstantly modified by our consciousness of the divine part, orotherwise it cannot fail to be rationalistic; that is, it will be thejudgment of the understanding only, unchecked by the reason. Gesenius'Commentary on Isaiah is rationalistic, for it regards Isaiah merely as aJewish writer, zealously attached to the religion of his country, andlamenting the decay of his nation, and anxiously looking for its futurerestoration. No doubt Isaiah was all this, and therefore Gesenius'Commentary is critically and historically very valuable; the human partof Isaiah is nowhere better illustrated; but the divine part of theprophecy of Isaiah is no less real, and the consciousness of itsexistence should actually qualify our feelings and language even withreference to the human part. 

9th. The fault, then, of rationalism appears to me to consist not somuch in what it has as in what it has not. The understanding has itsproper work to do with respect to the Bible, because the Bible consistsof human writings and contains a human history. Critical and historicalinquiries respecting it are, therefore, perfectly legitimate; itcontains matter which is within the province of the understanding, andthe understanding has God's warrant for doing that work which heappointed it to do; only, let us remember, that the understanding cannotascend to things divine; that for these another faculty isnecessary, --reason or faith. If this faculty be living in us, then therecan be no rationalism; and what is called so is then no other than thevoice of Christian truth. Where a man's writings show that he is keenlyalive to the divine part of Scripture, that he sees God ever in it, andregards it truly as his word, his judgments of the human part in it arenot likely to be rationalistic; and if his understanding decidesaccording to its own laws, upon points within its own province, whilehis faith duly tempers it, and restrains it from venturing uponanother's dominion, the result will, in all probability, be such ascommonly attends the use of God's manifold gifts in their justproportions, --it will image, after our imperfect measure, the holinessof God and the truth of God. 

It is very true, and should be acknowledged in the fullest manner, thatfor the study of the highest moral and spiritual questions anotherfaculty than the understanding is wanting; and that without this facultythe understanding alone cannot arrive at truth. But it is no less true, that while there is, on the one side, a faculty higher than theunderstanding, which is entitled to pronounce upon its defects; "for hethat is spiritual judgeth all things, " ([Greek: auachriuei];) so thereis a clamour often raised against it, not from above, but frombelow, --the clamour of mere shallowness and ignorance, and passion. Ofthis sort is some of the outcry which is raised against rationalism. Mendo not leap, _per saltum mortalem_, from ordinary folly to divinewisdom: and the foolish have no right to think that they are angels, because they are not humanly wise. There is a deep and universal truthin St. Paul's words, where he says, that Christians wish "not to beunclothed but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life. "Wisdom is gained, not by renouncing or despising the understanding, butby adding to its perfect work the perfect work of reason, and ofreason's perfection, faith. 

 * * * * *

NOTE I. P. 331. 

"_A famous example of this may be seen in the sixth chapter of St. John, "_ &c. --The interpretation of this chapter, and particularly of thepart alluded to in the text, is of no small importance; for it isremarkable, that the highest notions with respect to the presence ofour Lord in the Holy Communion are often grounded upon this passage inSt. John's Gospel, which yet, in the judgment of others, most decisivelyrepels them. 

The whole question resolves itself into this--Are our Lord's words inthis place co-ordinate with the Holy Communion, or subordinate to it?That is, do they and the communion alike point to some great truthsuperior to them both: or do our Lord's words, in St. John, point to thecommunion itself as their highest meaning?

The communion itself expresses a truth above itself by a symbolicalaction; the words of our Lord, in St. John, are exactly the same withthat symbolic action; it is natural, therefore, to understand them notas referring to it, but to the same[14] higher truth to which it refersalso: and the more so as the communion is not once mentioned by St. Johneither in his Gospel or in his Epistles; but the idea which thecommunion expresses appears to have been familiar to his mind; at least, if we suppose that his mention of the blood and water flowing from ourLord's side in his Gospel, and his allusion again to the same fact inhis Epistle, have reference in any degree to it, which seems to memost probable. 

[Footnote 14: The common tendency to make the Christian sacraments anultimate end rather than a mean, is exhibited in the heading of thetenth chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in our authorizedversion, where we find the first verses described as stating, that "theJews' sacraments were types of ours. " Whereas, so far is it from theapostle's argument to represent our sacraments as the reality of whichthe Jews' sacraments were the type, that he is describing theirs andours as co-ordinate with each other, and both alike subordinate to thesame truth; and he argues, that if the Jews, with their sacraments, didnotwithstanding lose the reality which those sacraments typified, so weshould take heed lest we, with our sacraments, should lose it also. Theerroneous heading is not given in the Geneva Bible, where we have, onthe contrary, the true observation; "the sacraments of the old fatherswere all one with ours, for they respected Christ only. " It is true thatif no more were meant than that "the Jews' sacraments were like ours, "there would be no reason to object to the expression; but apparentlymore is meant, as the word type seems to imply that what it is comparedwith is the reality, of which it is itself only the image; and one thingcannot properly be called the type of another, when both are but typesof the same third thing. But the divines of James the First's reign andof his son's, were to the reformers exactly what the so-called fatherswere to the apostles: the very same tendencies, growing up even inElizabeth's reign, becoming strengthened under the Stuart kings, andfully developed in the nonjurors, which distinguish the divines of theseventeenth century from those of the sixteenth, distinguish also thechurch system from the gospel. There are many who readily acknowledgethis difference in the English church, while they would deny it in thecase of the ancient church. Indeed, it is not yet deemed prudent to avowopenly that they prefer the so-called fathers to the apostles, andtherefore they try to persuade themselves that both speak the samelanguage. And doubtless, if the Scriptures are to be interpretedaccording to the rule of the writers of the third, and fourth, and fifthcenturies, the thing can easily be effected; as, by a similar process, the Articles of the Church of England, if interpreted according to therule of the nonjurors and their successors, might be made to speak thevery sentiments which their authors designed to condemn. ]

Our Lord repels the notion of a literal acceptation of his words, wherehe says, --"It is the Spirit which profiteth, the flesh profitethnothing; the words which I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they arelife. " It seems impossible, therefore, to refer these words, which hetells us expressly are Spirit and life, to any outward act of eating anddrinking as their highest truth and object. 

But the words in the sixth chapter of St. John do highly illustrate theinstitution and purpose of the communion, and especially the remarkablewords which our Lord used in instituting it. They show what infiniteimportance he attached to that truth which he expressed both insymbolical words and action under the same figure, of eating His bodyand drinking His blood. But to suppose that that truth can only berealized by one particular ritual action, so that the one great work ofa Christian is to receive the Lord's supper, --which it must be, if ourLord's words in the sixth chapter of St. John refer to thecommunion, --is so contrary to the whole character of our Lord'steaching, and not least so in the very words so misinterpreted, that tomaintain such a doctrine, leading, as it does, to such manifoldsuperstitions, is actually to preach another Gospel than Christ's--tobring in a mystical religion instead of a spiritual one, --to do worsethan to Judaize. 

 * * * * *

NOTE K. P. 345. 

_"A set of persons, who wish to magnify the uncertainties of theScripture in order to recommend more plausibly the guidance of somesupposed authoritative interpreter of it. "_--"The high church party, " wehave been lately told, "take Holy Scripture for their guide, and, in theinterpretation of it, defer to the authority of primitive antiquity: thelow church party contend for the sufficiency of private judgment. " It isbecome of the greatest importance to see clearly, not what one party, oranother, may contend for, but what is the real truth, and what, accordingly, is the duty of every Christian man to do in this matter. The sermon to which this note refers, is an attempt to show thatScripture is not hopelessly obscure or ambiguous; but it may not beinexpedient here to consider a little, what are the objections to theprinciple of the high church party; to clear away certain difficultieswhich are supposed to beset the opposite principle; and to state, ifpossible, what the truth of the whole question is. 

I. The objections to the principle of the high church party are these:1st. Its extreme vagueness. What is primitive antiquity? and where isits authority to be found? Does "primitive antiquity" mean the firstthree centuries? or the first two? or the first five? or the firstseven? Does it include any of the general councils? or one of them? orfour? or six? Are Irenæus and Tertullian the latest writers of"primitive antiquity?" or does it end with Augustine? or does itcomprehend the venerable Bede? One writer has lately told us, that ourReformers wished the people to be taught, "that, for almost sevenhundred years, the church was most pure. " Are we, then, to hold that"primitive antiquity" embraces a period of nearly seven centuries? Sevencenturies are considerably more than a third part of the whole durationof the church, from its foundation to this hour: can the third part of anation's history be called its primitive antiquity? Is a tenet, or apractice taught when Christianity had been more than six hundred yearsin the world, to be called primitive? We know not, then, in the firstplace, what length of time is signified by "primitive antiquity. "

But let it signify any length of time we choose, I ask, next, where isits authority to be found? In the decisions of the general councils? Butif we call the first four centuries "primitive antiquity, " we find inthis period only two general councils; if we include the fifth century, we get four; if we take in the sixth and seventh centuries, we havethen, in all, six general councils. Will the decisions of any, or all, of these six councils furnish us with an authoritative interpretation ofScripture? They give us the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan creeds;they condemn various notions with respect to the person of our Lord, andto some other points of belief; and they contain a variety ofregulations for the discipline and order of the church; but, with theexception of some particular passages, there is no authority in thecreeds, or canons, or anathemas of those councils, for theinterpretation of Scripture; they leave its difficulties just where theywere before. It is but little then, which the first six generalcouncils will do towards providing the student of Scripture with aninfallible standard of interpretation. 

Where, however, except in the councils, can we find any thing claimingto be the voice of the church? Neither individual writers, nor yet allthe writers of the first seven centuries together, can properly becalled the church. They form, even altogether, but a limited number ofindividuals, who, in different countries, and at different periods, expressed, in writing, their own sentiments, but without any publicauthority. Origen, one of the ablest and most learned of them all, wasanathematized by the second council of Constantinople; Tertullian washeretical during a part of his life; Lactantius was taxed withheterodoxy. How are we to know who were sound? And if sound generally, that is to say, if they stand charged with no heretical error, yet itdoes not follow that a man is infallible because he is not heretical;and none of these writers have been distinguished like the five greatRoman lawyers whom the edict of Theodosius[15] selected from the mass, and gave to their decisions a legal authority. Or again, if it be saidthat the agreement of the great majority of them is to be regarded asdecisive, we answer, that as no individual amongst them is in himself anauthority legally, so neither can any number of them be so; and if amoral authority only be meant, such as we naturally ascribe to theconcurring judgment of many eminent men, then this is a totallydifferent question, and is open to inquiry in every separate case; foras, on the one hand, no one denies that such a concurring judgment is_an_ authority, yet, on the other hand, it may be outweighed, either bythe worth of the few who differ from the judgment, or by the reason ofthe case itself; and the concurring judgment of the majority may show nomore than the force of a general prejudice, which only a very fewindividuals were sensible enough to resist. 

[Footnote 15: Cod. Theodos. Lib. I. Tit. Iv. The edict is issued in thename of the emperors Theodosius (the younger) and Valentinian (theyounger), in the year A. D. 426. ]

In fact, it would greatly help to clear this question if we understandwhat we mean by allowing, or denying, the authority of the so-calledfathers. The term _authority_ is ambiguous, and according to the sensein which I use it, I should either acknowledge it or deny it. --Thewriters of the first four, or of the first seven centuries, have _an_authority, just as the scholiasts and ancient commentators have: some ofthem, and in some points, are of weight singly; the agreement of manyof thorn has much weight; the agreement of almost all of them would havegreat weight. In this sense, I acknowledge their authority; and it wouldbe against all sound principles of criticism to deny it. But if, byauthority, is meant a _decisive_ authority, a judgment which may not bequestioned, then the claim of authority in such a case, for any man, orset of men, is either a folly or a revelation. Such an authority is nothuman, but divine: if any man pretends to possess it, let him show God'sclear warrant for his pretension, or he must be regarded as a deceiveror a madman. 

But it may be said, that an authority not to be questioned wasconferred, by the Roman law, on the opinions of a certain number ofgreat lawyers: if a judge believed that their interpretation of the lawwas erroneous, he yet was not at liberty to follow his own privatejudgment in departing from it. Why may not the same thing be allowed inthe church? and why may not the interpretations of Cyprian, orAthanasius, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, be as decisive, with respect tothe true sense of the Scripture, as those of Gaius, Paulus, Modestinus, Ulpian, and Papinian, were acknowledged to be with respect to the senseof the Roman law?

The answer is, that the emperor's edict could absolve the judge fromfollowing his own convictions about the sense of the law, because itgave to the authorized interpretation the force of law. The text, as thejudge interpreted it, was a law repealed; the comment of the greatlawyers was now the law in its room. As a mere literary composition, hemight interpret it rightly, and Gaius, or Papinian, might be wrong; butif his interpretation was ever so right grammatically or critically, yet, legally it was nothing to the purpose;--Gaius's interpretation hadsuperseded it, and was not the law which he was bound to obey. But, inthe church, the only point to be aimed at is the discovery of the truemeaning of the text of the divine law: no human power can invest thecomment with equal authority. The emperor said, and might say to hisjudges, "You need not consider what was the meaning of the decemvirs, when they wrote the twelve tables, or, of Aquillius, when he drew up theAquillian law. The law for you is not what the decemvirs may have meant, but what their interpreters may have meant: the decemvirs' meaning, ifit was their meaning, is no longer the law of Rome. " But who can dare tosay to a Christian, "You need not consider what was the meaning of ourLord and his apostles; the law for you now is the meaning of Cyprian, orAmbrose, or Chrysostom;--that meaning has superseded the meaning ofChrist. " A Christian must find out Christ's meaning, and believe that hehas found it, or else he must still seek for it. It is a matter, not ofoutward submission, but of inward faith; and if in our inward mind weare persuaded that the interpreter has mistaken our Lord's meaning, howcan we by possibility adopt that interpretation in faith?

Here we come to a grave consideration--that this doctrine of aninfallible rule of interpretation may suit ignorance or scepticism: itis death to a sincere and reasonable and earnest faith. It is not hardfor a sceptical mind to deceive itself by saying, that it receiveswhatever the church declares to be true: it may receive any number ofdoctrines, but it will not really believe them. We may restrain ourtongues from disputing them, we may watch every restless thought thatwould question them, and instantly, by main force, as it were, put itdown; but all this time our minds do not assimilate to them; they do nottake them up into their own nature, so as to make them a part ofthemselves, freshening and supplying the life-blood of their very being. Truth must be believed by the mind's own act; our souls must be drawntowards it with a reasonable love; some affinity there must be betweenit and them, or else they can never really comprehend it. The scepticmay desperately become a fanatic also, but he is not become, therefore, a believer. 

Authority cannot compel belief; the sceptic who knows not what it is tograsp anything with the firm grasp of faith, may mistake hisacquiescence in a doctrine for belief in it; the ignorant and careless, who believe only what their senses tell them, may lay up the words ofdivine truth in their memory, may repeat them loudly, and be vehementagainst all who question them. But minds to which faith is a necessity, which cannot be contented to stand by the side of truth, but must becomealtogether one with it, --minds which know full well the differencebetween opinion and conviction, between not questioning andbelieving, --they, when their own action is superseded by an authorityforeign to themselves, are in a condition which they find intolerable. Told to believe what they cannot believe; told that they ought not tobelieve what they feel most disposed to believe; they retire altogetherfrom the region of divine truth, as from a spot tainted with moraldeath, and devote themselves to other subjects: to physical science, itmay be, or to political; where the inherent craving of their nature mayyet be gratified, where, however insignificant the truth may be, theymay yet find some truth to believe. This has been the condition of toomany great men in the church of Rome; and it accounts for thatbitterness of feeling with which Machiavelli, and others like him, appear to have regarded the whole subject of Christianity. 

The system, then, of deferring to the authority of what is called theancient church in the interpretation of Scripture, is impracticable, inasmuch as, with regard to the greatest part of the Scripture, thechurch, properly speaking, has said nothing at all; and if it werepracticable, it would be untenable, because neither the old councils, nor individual writers, could give any sign that they had a divine giftof interpretation; and if such a gift had been given to them, it wouldhave been equivalent to a new revelation, the sense of the comment beingthus preferred to what we could not but believe to be the sense of thetext. Above all, the system is destructive of faith, having a tendencyto substitute passive acquiescence for real conviction; and therefore Ishould not say that the excess of it was popery, but that it had onceand actually those characters of evil which we sometimes express by theterm popery, but which may be better signified by the term idolatry; areverence for that which ought not to be reverenced, leading to a wantof faith in that which is really deserving of all adoration and love. 

II. But it is said that the system of relying on private judgment isbeset by no less evils: that it is itself inconsistent, and leads toSocinianism and Rationalism, and, in the end, to utter unbelief; sothat, the choice being only between two evils, men may choose the systemof church authority as being the less evil of the two. If this were so, I see not how faith could be attained at all, or what place would beleft for Christian truth. But the system of the Church of England[16]is, I am persuaded, fully consistent, and has no tendency either toSocinianism or Rationalism. Let us see first what that system is. 

[Footnote 16: Much has been lately written to show that the Church ofEngland allows the authority of the ancient councils and writers, anddoes not allow the right of private judgment. But it is perfectly clear, from the 21st Article, that it does not allow the authority of councils;that is to say, it holds that a council's exposition of doctrine may befalse, and that such an exposition is of no force "unless it may bedeclared that it be taken out of Holy Scripture. " Who, then, is todeclare this? for to suppose that the declaration of the council itselfis meant is absurd: the answer, I imagine, would be, according to themind of the Reformers, "Every particular or national church, " andespecially the King as the head of the church. They would not haveallowed private judgment, because they conceived that a private personhad nothing to do but to obey the government; and it was for thegovernment to determine what the truth of Scripture was. The Church ofEngland, then, expressly disclaims the authority of councils, and, inits official instruments, it neither allows nor condemns privatejudgment; but the opinions of the Reformers, and the constitution of thechurch in the 16th century, were certainly against private judgment:their authority for the interpretation of Scripture was undoubtedly thesupreme government of the church, i. E. Not the bishops, but the King andparliament. But then this had respect not to the power of discerningtruth, but to the right of publishing it, which is an wholly differentquestion. That an individual was not bound _in foro conscientiæ_ toadmit the truth of any interpretation of Scripture which did not approveitself to his own mind, was no less the judgment of the Church ofEngland than that if he publicly disputed the interpretation of thechurch, he might be punished as unruly and a despiser of government. Butthen it should ever be remembered that the church, with the Reformers, was not the clergy. And now that the right of publication is conceded bythe church, it is quite just to say that the Church of England allowsprivate judgment; and if that judgment differ from her own, she condemnsnot the act of judging at all, but the having come to a falseconclusion. 

It is urged that the act of I Elizabeth, c. 1, allows that to be heresywhich the first four councils determined to be so. This is true; but italso adjudges to be heresy whatever shall be hereafter declared to be soby "the high court of parliament, with the assent of the clergy in theirconvocation. " The Church of England undoubtedly allowed the decisions ofthe first four councils, in matters of doctrine, to be valid, as itallowed the three creeds, because it decided that they were agreeable toScripture; but the binding authority was that of the English Parliament, not of the councils of Nicæa or Constantinople. 

As to the canon of 1571, which allows preachers to teach nothing asreligious truth but what is agreeable to the Scriptures, "_and_ whichthe catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that verydoctrine of Scripture, " it will be observed that it is merely negative, and does not sanction the teaching of the "catholic fathers and ancientbishops, " generally, or say that men shall teach what they taught; butthat they shall not teach as matter of religious faith, a new deductionfrom Scripture of their own making, but such truths as had been actuallydeduced from Scripture before, namely, the great articles of theChristian faith. Farther, the canons of 1571 are of no authority, nothaving received the royal assent. --_See Strype's Life of Parker_, p. 322, ed. 1711. ]

It is invidiously described as maintaining "the sufficiency of privatejudgment. " Now we maintain the sufficiency of private judgment ininterpreting the Scriptures in no other sense than that in which everysane man maintains its sufficiency, in interpreting Thucydides orAristotle; we mean, that, instead of deferring always to some oneinterpreter, as an idle boy follows implicitly the Latin version of hisGreek lesson, the true method is to consult all[17] accessibleauthorities, and to avail ourselves of the assistance of all. And wecontend, that, by this process, as we discover, for the most part, thetrue meaning of Thucydides and Aristotle with undoubted certainty, so wemay also discover, not, indeed, in every particular part or passage, butgenerally, the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures with no lesscertainty. 

[Footnote 17: Of course no reasonable man can doubt the importance ofstudying the early Christian writers, as illustrating not only thehistory of their own times, but the New Testament also. For the OldTestament, indeed, they do little or nothing, and for the New they areof much less assistance than might have been expected; but still thereis no doubt that they are often useful. ]

But if another man maintains that a different meaning is the true one, how are we to silence him, and how are we justified in calling him aheretic? If by the term heretic we are to imply moral guilt, I am notjustified in applying it to any Christian, unless his doctrines arepositively sinful, or there is something wicked, either in the way ofdishonesty or bitterness, in his manner of maintaining them. The guiltof any given religious error, in any particular case, belongs only tothe judgment of Him who reads the heart. But if we mean by heresy "agrave error in matters of the Christian faith, overthrowing orcorrupting some fundamental article of it, " then we are as fullyjustified in calling a gross misinterpretation of Scripture "heresy, " aswe should be justified in calling a gross misinterpretation of a profaneGreek or Latin author, ignorance, or want of scholarship. There is noinfallible authority in points of grammar and criticism, yet men dospeak confidently, notwithstanding, as to learning and ignorance; Porsonand Herman are known to have understood their business, and a writer whowere to set their decisions at defiance, and to indulge in mereextravagances of interpretation, would be set down as one who knewnothing about the matter. So we judge daily in all points of literatureand science; nay, we in the same manner venture to call some personsmad, and on the strength of our conviction we deprive them of theirproperty, and shut them up in a madhouse: yet if madmen wore to insistthat they were sane, and that we were mad, I know not to what infallibleauthority we could appeal; and, after all, what are we to do with thosewho deny that authority to be infallible? we must then go to anotherinfallible authority to guarantee the infallibility of the first, andthis process will run on for ever. 

But, in truth, there is more in the matter than the being justified ornot justified in calling our neighbour a heretic. The real point ofanxiety, I imagine, with many good and thinking men is this: whether areasonable belief can be fairly carried through; whether the notion ofthe all-sufficiency of Scripture is not liable to objections no lessthan the system of church-authority; whether, in short, our Christianfaith can be consistently maintained without a mortal leap at some partor other of the process; nay, whether, in fact, if it were otherwise, our faith would not seem to stand rather on the wisdom of man than onthe power of God. 

I use these words, because these and other such passages of theScripture are often quoted as I have now quoted them, and produce agreat effect on those who do not observe that they are quotedinapplicably; for the question is not between man's wisdom and God'spower, but simply whether we have reason to believe that God's power hasbeen here manifested; or, rather, to see whether we cannot give a reasonfor the faith which is in us, such faith resting upon God's power andwisdom as manifested in Christ Jesus; for if no reason can be renderedfor our faith, then our minds, so far as they are concerned, arebelieving a lie; they are believing in spite of those laws by which Godhas determined their nature and condition. 

Yet, however we believe, blindly or reasonably, (for some men, by God'smercy, are accidentally, as it were, in possession of the truth, thefalsehood of their own minds in holding it not being, it is to be hoped, imputed to them as a sin;) however we believe, I never mean to say thatour faith is not God's gift, to be sought for and retained by constantprayer and watchfulness, and to be forfeited by carelessness or sin. That is no true faith in which reason does not accord; yet neither canreason alone and without God ever become perfected into faith. Foralthough intellectually, the grounds of belief may be made outsatisfactorily, yet we are not able to follow our pure reason byourselves; and no work on the evidences of Christianity can by itselfgive us faith; and much less can amid the manifold conflicts of lifemaintain it. That faith is thus the gift of God, and not our own work, Iwould desire to feel as keenly and continually, as with the fullestconviction I acknowledge it. 

Now, to resume the consideration of that which, as I said, is the realpoint of anxiety with many. They doubt whether the course of areasonable belief can be held to the end without interruptions: they saythat the received notions of the inspiration, and consequently of thecomplete truth of the Scriptures cannot reasonably be maintained; thathe who does maintain them does so by a happy inconsistency;--he is tobe congratulated for not following up his own principles; but why shouldhe then find fault with others who do that avowedly and consistently towhich he is driven against his professions by the clear necessity ofthe case?

This argument was pressed by Mr. Newman, some time since, in one of theTracts for the Times; and it was conducted, as may be supposed, withgreat ingenuity, but with a recklessness of consequences, or anignorance of mankind, truly astonishing; for he brought forward all thedifficulties and differences which can be found in the Scripturenarratives, displayed them in their most glaring form, and merelyobserved, that as those with whom he was arguing could not solve thesedifficulties, but yet believed the Scriptures no less in spite of them, so the apparent unreasonableness of his doctrine about the priesthoodwas no ground why it should be rejected--a method of argument mostblameable in any Christian to adopt towards his brethren; for what iftheir faith, being thus vehemently strained, were to give way under theexperiment? and if, being convinced that the Scriptures were not morereasonable than Mr. Newman's system, they were to end with believing, not both, but neither?

Therefore the question is one of no small anxiety and interest; and itis not idly nor wantonly that we must speak the truth upon it, even ifthat truth may to some seem startling; for by God's blessing, if we dogo boldly forward wherever truth shall lead us, our course needs not beinterrupted, neither shall a single hair of our faith perish. 

The same laws of criticism which teach us to distinguish between variousdegrees of testimony, authorize us to assign the very highest rank tothe evidences of the writings of St. John and St. Paul. If belief is tobe given to any human compositions, it is due to these; yet if webelieve these merely as human compositions, and without assuminganything as to their divine inspiration, our Christian faith, as itseems to me, is reasonable;--not merely the facts of our Lord's miraclesand resurrection; but Christian faith, in all its fulness--the wholedispensation of the Spirit, the revelation of the redemption of man andof the Divine Persons who are its authors--of all that Christian faith, and hope, and love can need. And this is so true, that even withoutreckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst St. Paul's writings, --nay, even if we choose to reject the three pastoral epistles[18]--yet takingonly what neither has been nor can be doubted--the epistles to theRomans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, andThessalonians, we have in these, together with St. John's Gospel andFirst Epistle, --giving up, if we choose, the other two, --a ground onwhich our faith may stand for ever, according to the strictest rules ofthe understanding, according to the clearest intuitions of reason. 

[Footnote 18: I say this, not as having the slightest doubt myself ofthe genuineness of any one of the three, but merely to show how much isleft that has not been questioned at all, even unreasonably. ]

I take the works of St. John and St. Paul as our foundation, because, inthe first place, we find in them the historical basis of Christianity;that is to say, we find the facts of our Lord's miracles, and especiallyof his resurrection, and the miraculous powers afterwards continued tothe church, established by the highest possible evidence. However pureand truly divine the principles taught in the gospel may be, yet wecrave to know not only that we were in need of redemption, but that aRedeemer has actually appeared; not only that a resurrection to eternallife is probable, but that such a resurrection has actually taken place. This basis of historical fact, which is one of the great peculiaritiesof Christianity, is strictly within the cognizance of the understanding;and in the writings of St. John and St. Paul we have that full andperfect evidence of it which the strictest laws of the understandingrequire. 

But the historical truth being once warranted by the understanding, other faculties of our nature now come in to enjoy it, and develop it;the highest reason and the moral and spiritual affections findrespectively their proper field and objects, which, whenever presentedto them in vision or in theory, they must instinctively cling to, but towhich they now abandon themselves without fear of disappointment, because the understanding has assured them of their reality. We mustsuppose, on any system, the existence of reason and spiritual affectionsas indispensable to the understanding of the Scriptures; externalauthority can do nothing for us without these, any more than the merefaculties of the common understanding. But with these we apprehend theview which St. John and St. Paul afford to us: it opens before us onetruth after another, one glory after another. St. John evidentlysupposes that his readers were familiar with another account of ourLord's life and teaching; and we find accordingly, another accountexisting in the writings of the three other evangelists. One and thesame account is manifestly the substance of their three narratives, towhich they thus bear a triple testimony, because none of the three hasmerely transcribed the others, and none of them apparently was theoriginal author of it. Thus having now the full record of our Lord'steaching, we find that he everywhere refers to the Old Testament as tothe word of God, and the record of God's earlier manifestations ofhimself to man. He has cleared up those especial points in it whichmight have most perplexed us, as I shall notice more fully hereafter, and he represents himself as the perpetual subject of its prophecies. Wethus receive the Old Testament, as it were, from his hand, and learnwhile sitting at his feet to understand the lessons of the law andthe prophets. 

Thus we make Christ the centre of both Testaments, and by so doing, wecannot be blind to the divinity pervading both. For the amazing factthat God should come into the world and be in the world cannot bypossibility stand alone; it hallows, as it were, the whole period of theworld's existence, from the beginning to the end, placing all time andevery place in relation to God; it disposes us at once to receive thefact of the special call of the people of Israel;--it gives, I hadalmost said, an _à priori_ reason why there must have been in earliertimes some shadows, at least, or images, to represent dimly to formergenerations that great thing which they were not actually to witness; itleads us to believe that there must have been some prophetic voices toannounce the future coming of the Lord, or else "The very stones musthave cried out. "

But those writings of St. John and St. Paul which were our first lessonsin Christianity, and those other accounts of our Lord's life andteaching to which they introduced us, --can we conceive it possible, thatthe real meaning of all these shall be hopelessly obscure and uncertain;that if we seek it ever so diligently, we shall not find it? With anhumble mind ready to learn, with a heart fully impressed with the senseof God's presence, so as to be morally and spiritually in a condition toreceive God's truth, can we believe, then, that the use of thoseintellectual means, which open to us certainly the sense of humanwriters, shall be applied in vain to those writers who were commissionedto be the very heralds of a divine message, whose especial business itwas to make known what they had themselves heard? Surely if a sufficientcertainty of interpretation be attainable in common literature, therevelation of God cannot be the solitary exception. 

But we may be mistaken: we may _believe_ that we interpret truly, butwe cannot be _infallibly sure_ of it; we want an authority which shallgive us this assurance. This is no doubt the natural craving of ourweakness; but it is no wiser a craving than if we were to long for theheaven to be opened, and for a daily sight of our Lord standing at theright hand of God. To live by faith is our appointed condition, andfaith excludes an infallible assurance. We must earnestly believe thatwe have the truth, and die for our belief, if necessary, but we cannot_know_ it. No device which the human mind can practise, can exclude thepossibility of doubt. If we would find an armour which should cover usat every point from this subtle enemy, it would be an armour that wouldclose up the pores of the skin, and stop our breath; our fanciedsecurity would kill us. Is it really possible that, with our knowledgeof man's nature, our belief in any human authority can really be morefree from doubt than our belief in the conclusions of our own reason?There must ever be the liability to uncertainty; we can put no moraltruth so surely as that our minds shall always feel it to be absolutelycertain. Where is the infallible authority that can assure us even ofthe existence of God? And will the scepticism that can believe its ownconclusions in nothing else rest satisfied with one conclusiononly--that the writers of the first four centuries cannot err? Surely toregard this as the most certain proposition that can be submitted to thehuman mind, is no better than insanity. 

But we will consent to trust, it may be said, with God's help, to ourown deliberate convictions that we have interpreted Scripture truly; butyou tell us that the Scripture itself is not inspired in every part; youtell us that there are in it chronological and historical difficulties, if not errors; that there are possibly some interpolations; that eventhe apostles may have been in some things mistaken, as in their beliefthat the end of the world was at hand. Where shall we find a rest forour feet, if you first take away from us our infallible interpreter, andnow tell us, that even if we can ourselves interpret it aright, yet thatwe cannot be sure that the very Scripture itself is infallibly true?

It is very true that our position with respect to the Scriptures is notin all points the same as our fathers'. For sixteen hundred yearsnearly, while physical science, and history, and chronology, andcriticism, were all in a state of torpor, the questions which nowpresent themselves to our minds could not from the nature of the casearise. When they did arise, they came forward into notice gradually:first the discoveries in astronomy excited uneasiness: then as menbegan to read more critically, differences in the several Scripturenarratives of the same thing awakened attention; more lately, thegreater knowledge which has been gained of history, and of language, andin all respects the more careful inquiry to which all ancient recordshave been submitted, have brought other difficulties to light, and somesort of answer must be given to them. Mr. Newman, as we have seen, hasmade use of those difficulties much as the Romanists have used thedoctrine of the Trinity when arguing with Trinitarians[19] in defence oftransubstantiation. The Romanists said, --"Here are all theseinexplicable difficulties in the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet youbelieve it. " So Mr. Newman argues with those who hold the plenaryinspiration of Scripture, that if they believe that, in spite of all thedifficulties which beset it, they may as well believe his doctrine ofthe priesthood; and many, if I mistake not, alarmed by thisrepresentation, have actually embraced his opinions. 

[Footnote 19: On this proceeding of the Romanists, Stillingfleetobserves, "Methinks for the sake of our common Christianity you shouldno more venture upon such bold and unreasonable comparisons. Do you inearnest think it is all one whether men do believe a God, or providence, or heaven, or hell, or the Trinity, and incarnation of Christ, if theydo not believe transubstantiation? We have heard much of late about oldand new popery: but if this be the way of representing new popery, byexposing the common articles of faith, it will set the minds of all goodChristians farther from it than ever. For upon the very same grounds wemay expect another parallel between the belief of a God andtransubstantiation, the effect of which will be the exposing of allreligion. This is a very destructive and mischievous method ofproceeding; but our comfort is that it is very unreasonable, as I hopehath fully appeared by this discourse. "--_Doctrine of the Trinity andTransubstantiation compared_, at the end. ]

It has unfortunately happened that the difficulties of the Scripturehave been generally treated as objections to the truth of Christianity;as such they have been pressed by adversaries, and as such Christianwriters have replied to them. But then they become of such tremendousinterest, that it is scarcely possible to examine them fairly. If myfaith in God and my hope of eternal life is to depend on the accuracy ofa date or of some minute historical particular, who can wonder that Ishould listen to any sophistry that may be used in defence of them, orthat I should force my mind to do any sort of violence to itself, whenlife and death seem to hang on the issue of its decision?

Yet what conceivable connexion is there between the date of Cyrenius'sgovernment, or the question whether our Lord healed a blind man as hewas going into Jericho or as he was leaving it; or whether Judas boughthimself the field of blood, or it was bought by the high priests: whatconnexion can there be between such questions, and the truth of God'slove to man in the redemption, and of the resurrection of our Lord? Dowe give to any narrative in the world, to any statement, verbal orwritten, no other alternative than that it must be either infallible orunworthy of belief? Is not such an alternative so extravagant as to be acomplete reductio ad absurdum? And yet such is the alternative which menseem generally to have admitted in considering the Scripture narratives:if a single error can be discovered, it is supposed to be fatal to thecredibility of the whole. 

This has arisen from an unwarranted interpretation of the word"inspiration, " and by a still more unwarranted inference. An inspiredwork is supposed to mean a work to which God has communicated his ownperfections; so that the slightest error or defect of any kind in it isinconceivable, and that which is other than perfect in all points cannotbe inspired. This is the unwarranted interpretation of the word"inspiration. " But then follows the still more unwarrantedinference, --"If all the Scripture is not inspired, Christianity cannotbe true, " an inference which is absolutely entitled to no otherconsideration than what it may seem to derive from the number of thosewho have either openly or tacitly maintained it. 

Most truly do I believe the Scriptures to be inspired; the proofs oftheir inspiration rise continually with the study of them. Thescriptural narratives are not only about divine things, but arethemselves divinely framed and superintended. I cannot conceive myconviction of this truth being otherwise than sure. Yet I mustacknowledge that the scriptural narratives do not claim this inspirationfor themselves; so that if I should be obliged to resign my belief init, which seems to me impossible, I yet should have no right to tax theScriptures with having advanced a pretension proved to be unfounded;their whole credibility as a most authentic history of the mostimportant facts would remain untouched; the gospel of St. John wouldstill be a narrative as unimpeachable as that of Thucydides, which nosane man has ever disbelieved. 

So much for the unwarranted inference, that if the Scripture historiesare not inspired, the great facts of the Christian revelation cannot bemaintained. But it is no less an unwarranted interpretation of the term"inspiration, " to suppose that it is equivalent to a communication ofthe Divine perfections. Surely, many of our words and many of ouractions are spoken and done by the inspiration of God's Spirit, withoutwhom we can do nothing acceptable to God. Yet does the Holy Spirit soinspire us as to communicate to us His own perfections? Are our bestwords or works utterly free from error or from sin? All inspiration doesnot then destroy the human and fallible part in the nature which itinspires; it does not change man into God. 

In one man, indeed, it was otherwise; but He was both God and man. ToHim the Spirit was given without measure; and as his life was withoutsin, so his words were without error. But to all others the Spirit hasbeen given by measure; in almost infinitely different measure it istrue: the difference between the inspiration of the common and perhapsunworthy Christian who merely said that "Jesus was the Lord, " and thatof Moses, or St. Paul, and St. John, is almost to our eyes beyondmeasuring. Still the position remains, that the highest degree ofinspiration given to man has still suffered to exist along with it aportion of human fallibility and corruption. 

Now, then, consider the epistles of the blessed Apostle St. Paul, whohad the Spirit of God so abundantly, that never we may suppose did anymerely human being enjoy a larger share of it. Endowed with the Spiritas a Christian, and daily receiving grace more largely, as he becamemore and more ripe for glory; endowed with the Spirit's extraordinarygifts most eminently; favoured also with an abundance of revelations, disclosing to him things ineffable and inconceivable, --are not hiswritings to be most truly called inspired? Can we doubt that, in what hehas told us of things not seen, or not seen as yet, --of Him whopre-existed in the form of God before he was manifested in the form ofman, --of that great day, when we shall arise incorruptible, and meet ourLord in the air, and be joined to him for ever, --can any reasonable minddoubt, that in speaking of these things he spoke what he had heard fromGod; that to refuse to believe his testimony is really todisbelieve God?

Yet this great Apostle expected that the world would come to an end inthe generation then existing. When he wrote to the Thessalonians someyears before his first imprisonment at Rome, he warned them, no doubt, against expecting the end immediately: but he appears still to havesupposed that it would come in the lifetime of men then living. At alater period, when writing to the Corinthians, his dissuasion ofmarriage seems to rest mainly upon this impression; it is good not tomarry, "on account of the distress which is close at hand;" ([Greek:dia taen enestosan anankaen]; compare 2 Thess. Ii. 2, [Greek: hos hotienestaeken hae haemera tou Kyriou]. ) "The time is short, " he adds; "thefashion of this world is passing away. " And again, when speaking of theresurrection, he says emphatically, "the dead shall rise incorruptible, and _we_ shall be changed;" where the pronoun being expressed in theoriginal, [Greek: chai haemeis allagaesometha], shows that by the term"_we_, " he does not mean the dead, but those who were to be alive atChrist's coming. So again, still later, when writing from Rome to thePhilippians, he tells them "the Lord is at hand;" and later still, evenin his first epistle to Timothy, he charges Timothy "to keep hiscommandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our LordJesus Christ. " These and other passages cannot without violence beinterpreted even singly in any other sense; but taking them together, their meaning seems absolutely certain. Shall we say, then, that St. Paul entertained and expressed a belief which the event did not verify?We may say so, safely and reverently, in this instance; for here he wasmost certainly speaking as a man, and not by revelation; as it has beenprovidentially ordered that our Lord's express words on this point havebeen recorded--"Of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angelsin heaven. " Or again, shall we say, that St. Paul advised theCorinthians not to marry, chiefly on this ground; and that this throws asuspicion over his directions in other points? But again it has beenordered, that in this very place, and no where else in all his writing, St. Paul has expressly said that he was only giving his judgment as aChristian, and not speaking with divine authority;--the concluding wordsof the chapter, [Greek: doko de kago pneuma theou echein] do notsignify, as our Version renders them, "And I think also that I have theSpirit of God, " as if he were confirming his own judgment by anassertion of his inspiration in a sense beyond that of commonChristians; but the words say, "And I think that I too have the Spiritof God, " "I too as well as others whom you might consult, so that myjudgment is no less worthy of attention than theirs. " But it is hisChristian judgment only that he is giving, as he expressly declares, andnot his apostolical command or revelation; a distinction which he nevermakes elsewhere, and which is in itself so striking, that we seem torecognise in it God's especial mercy to us, that our faith in St. Paul'sgeneral declarations of divine truth might not be shaken, because in oneparticular point he was permitted to speak as a man, giving expressnotice at the same time that he was doing so. 

Now it is at least remarkable, that in the only two instances in whichthe existence of any absence of divine authority is to be discerned inSt. Paul's epistles, provision is actually made by God's fondness toprevent them from prejudicing our faith in St. Paul's divine authoritygenerally. And so in whatever points any error may be discoverable inScripture, we shall find either that the errors are of a kind whollyunconnected with the revelation of what God has done to us, and of whatwe are to do towards Him; and therefore are perfectly consistent withthe inspiration of the writer, unless we take that unwarranted notion ofinspiration which considers it as equivalent to a communication of God'sattributes perfectly; (and of this kind are any errors that may existeither in points of physical science, or of chronology, or of history;)or if there be any thing else which appears inconsistent withinspiration, in the sense in which we really may and do apply it to theScriptures, namely, that they are a perfect guide and rule in allmatters concerning our relations with God, then we shall find that Godhas made some special provision for the case, to remove what itotherwise might have had of real difficulty. 

This merciful care is above all to be recognised with regard to onepoint, which otherwise would, I think, have been a difficulty actuallyinsuperable: I mean the manifestly imperfect moral standard, which insome cases is displayed in the characters of good men in the OldTestament. Put the gospel by the side of the law and history of theIsraelites; observe what the law permitted, and public opinion under thelaw did not condemn; observe the actions recorded of persons who aredeclared to have been eminently good, and to have received God'sespecial blessing; and it is manifest that had not our Lord himselfvouchsafed his help, one of two things must have happened--either thatwe must have followed the old heresy of rejecting the Old Testamentaltogether, or else that our respect for the Old Testament must haveimpeded the growth of the more perfect law of Christ. The true solutionI do not think that we could have discovered, or ventured to admit onless authority than our Lord's. But his express declaration, that somethings in the law itself were permitted, because nothing higher couldthen have been borne, and his stating in detail that in several pointswhat was accounted good or allowable in the former dispensation was notso really, while at the same time he constantly refers to the OldTestament as divine, and confirms its language of blessing with respectto its most eminent characters, has completely cleared to us the wholequestion, and enables us to recognize the divinity of the Old Testamentand the holiness of its characters, without lying against ourconsciences and our more perfect revelation, by justifying the actionsof those characters as right, essentially and abstractedly, althoughthey were excusable, or in some cases actually virtuous, according tothe standard of right and wrong which prevailed under the law. 

After observing God's gracious care for us in this instance, as well asin those which I have noticed before, I cannot but feel that we maysafely trust Him for every other similar case, if any such there be, andthat he will not permit our faith either in him or in his holy word tobe shaken, because we do not attempt to close our eyes against truth, nor seek to support our faith by sophistry and falsehood. Feeling whatthe Scriptures are, I would not give unnecessary pain to any one by anenumeration of those points in which the literal historical statement ofan inspired writer has been vainly defended. Some instances willprobably occur to most readers; others are perhaps not known, and neverwill be known to many, nor is it at all needful or desirable that theyshould know them. But if ever they are brought before them, let them nottry to put them aside unfairly, from a fear that they will injure ourfaith. Let us not do evil that evil may be escaped from; and it is anevil, and the fruitful parent of evils innumerable, to do violence toour understanding or to our reason in their own appointed fields; tomaintain falsehood in their despite, and reject the truth which theysanction. If writers of Mr. Newman's school will persist in displayingthe difficulties of the Scripture before the eyes of those who had notbeen before aware of them, let those who are so cruelly tempted beconjured not to be dismayed; to refuse utterly to surrender up theirsense of truth, --to persist in rejecting the unchristian falsehoodswhich they are called upon to worship; sure that after all that can besaid, that system will remain false to the end; and their Christianfaith, if they do not faithlessly attempt to strengthen it by unlawfulmeans, will stand no less unshaken. 

In conclusion, Christian faith rests upon Scripture; and as it is initself agreeable to the highest reason, so the authenticity of theScriptures on which it rests is assured to us by the deliberateconclusions of the understanding; nor is any "mortal leap" necessary atany part of the process: nor any rejection of one truth, in order toretain our hold on another. And if it should happen, as in allprobability it will, that we shall be called upon to correct in somerespects our notions as to the Scriptures, and so far to hold viewsdifferent from those of our fathers, we should consider that ourfathers did not, and could not stand in our circumstances; that theknowledge which may call upon us to relinquish some of their opinions, was a knowledge which they had not. Till this knowledge comes to us, letus hold our fathers' opinions as they held them; but when it does come, it will come by God's will, and to do his work: and that work will, assuredly, not be our separation from our father's faith; but if wefollow God's guidance humbly and cheerfully, clinging to God the whilein personal devotion and obedience, we may be made aware of what to themwould have been an inexplicable difficulty, and which was, therefore, hidden from their knowledge; and yet, "through the grace of our LordJesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved even as they. "

THE END.