{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13151/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13151","id":"gutenberg_13151","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13151","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian life","Sermons, English"],"text":"THE CHRISTIAN LIFE;\n\nITS COURSE, ITS HINDRANCES,\nAND ITS HELPS.\n\nBY\nTHOMAS ARNOLD, D.D.,\nHEAD MASTER OF RUGBY SCHOOL,\nAND LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD.\n\nFrom the Fifth London Edition.\n\n1856.\n\n\n\n     \"As far as the principle on which Archbishop Laud and his\n     followers acted went to re-actuate the idea of the church, as\n     a co-ordinate and living power by right of Christ's\n     institution and express promise, I go along with them; but I\n     soon discover that by the church they meant the clergy, the\n     hierarchy exclusively, and then I fly off from them in\n     a tangent.\n\n     \"For it is this very interpretation of the church, that,\n     according to my conviction, constituted the first and\n     fundamental apostasy; and I hold it for one of the greatest\n     mistakes of our polemical divines, in their controversies\n     with the Romanists, that they trace all the corruptions of\n     the gospel faith to the Papacy.\"--COLERIDGE,\n\n     _Literary Remains_, vol. iii. p. 386.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nGEN. iii. 22.--And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one\nof us, to know good and evil.\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\n1 COR. xiii. 11.--When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as\na child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away\nchildish things.\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\n1 COR. xiii. 11.--When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as\na child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away\nchildish things.\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nCOL. i. 9.--We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might\nbe filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual\nunderstanding.\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nCOL. i. 9.--We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might\nbe filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual\nunderstanding.\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nCOL. iii. 3.--Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\n1 COR. iii. 21--23.--All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or\nCephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to\ncome; all are yours, and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\nGAL. v. 16, 17.--Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts\nof the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit\nagainst the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that\nye cannot do the things that ye would.\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\nLUKE xiv. 33.--Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he\nhath, he cannot be my disciple.\n\n\nLECTURE X.\n\n1 TIM. i. 9.--The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the\nlawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy\nand profane.\n\n\nLECTURE XI.\n\nLUKE xxi. 36.--Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be\naccounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and\nto stand before the Son of Man.\n\n\nLECTURE XII.\n\nPROV. i. 28.--Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer: they\nshall seek me early, but they shall not find me.\n\n\nLECTURE XIII.\n\nMARK xii. 34.--Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.\n\n\nLECTURE XIV.\n\nMATT. xxii. 14.--For many are called, but few are chosen.\n\n\nLECTURE XV.\n\nLUKE xi. 25.--When he cometh he findeth it swept and garnished.\n\nJOHN v. 42.--I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.\n\n\nLECTURE XVI.\n\nMATT. xi. 10.--I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare\nthy way before thee.\n\n\nLECTURE XVII.\n\n1 COR. ii. 12.--We have received not the Spirit of the world, but the\nSpirit which is of God.\n\n\nLECTURE XVIII.\n\nGEN. xxvii. 38.--And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one\nblessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.\n\nMATT. xv. 27.--And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs\nwhich fall from their master's table.\n\n\nLECTURE XIX.\n\nMATT. xxii. 32.--God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.\n\n\nLECTURE XX.\n\nEZEK. xiii. 22.--With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad,\nwhom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that\nhe should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.\n\n\nLECTURE XXI.\n\nADVENT SUNDAY.\n\nHEB. iii. 16.--For some when they had heard did provoke; howbeit not all\nthat came out of Egypt by Moses.\n\n\nLECTURE XXII.\n\nCHRISTMAS DAY.\n\nJOHN i. 10.--He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the\nworld knew him not.\n\n\nLECTURE XXIII.\n\nSUNDAY NEXT BEFORE EASTER.\n\nMATT. xxvi. 40, 41.--What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch\nand pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is\nwilling, but the flesh is weak.\n\n\nLECTURE XXIV.\n\nGOOD FRIDAY.\n\nROMANS v. 8.--God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were\nyet sinners, Christ died for us.\n\n\nLECTURE XXV.\n\nEASTER DAY.\n\nJOHN xx. 20.--Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.\n\n\nLECTURE XXVI.\n\nWHITSUNDAY.\n\nACTS xix. 2.--Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?\n\n\nLECTURE XXVII.\n\nTRINITY SUNDAY.\n\nJOHN iii. 9.--How can these things be?\n\n\nLECTURE XXVIII.\n\nEXOD. iii. 6.--And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon\nGod.\n\nLUKE xxiii. 30.--Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on\nus; and to the hills, Cover us.\n\n\nLECTURE XXIX.\n\nPSALM cxxxvii. 4.--- How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange\nland?\n\n\nLECTURE XXX.\n\n1 COR. xi. 26.--For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,\nye do show the Lord's death till he come.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXI.\n\nLUKE i. 3, 4.--It seemed good to me, also, having had perfect\nunderstanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in\norder, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty\nof those things wherein thou hast been instructed.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXII.\n\nLuke i. 3, 4.--It seemed good to me, also, having had perfect\nunderstanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in\norder, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty\nof those things wherein thou hast been instructed.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXIII.\n\nJOHN ix. 29.--We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we\nknow not from whence he is.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXIV.\n\n1 COR. xiv. 20.--Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit, in\nmalice be ye children, but in understanding be men.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXV.\n\nMATT. xxvi. 45, 46.--Sleep on now and take your rest; behold the hour is\nat hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise,\nlet us be going: behold he is at hand that doth betray me.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXVI.\n\n2 COR. v. 17, 18.--Old things are passed away; behold all things are\nbecome new, and all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself\nby Jesus Christ.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXVII.\n\nEZEK. xx. 49.--Then said I, Ah, Lord God! they say of me Doth he not\nspeak parables?\n\n\nLECTURE XXXVIII.\n\nISAIAH v. 1.--Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved\ntouching his vineyard.\n\n\nLECTURE XXXIX.\n\nCOL. iii. 17.--Whatsoever ye do in the word or deed, do all in the name\nof the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him.\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe contents of this volume will be found, I hope, to be in agreement\nwith its title.\n\nAmongst the helps of Christian life, the highest place is due to the\nChristian church and its ordinances. I have been greatly misunderstood\nwith respect to my estimate of the Christian church, as distinguished\nfrom the Christian religion. I agree so far with those, from whom I in\nother things most widely differ, that I hold the revival of the church\nof Christ in its full perfection, to be the one great end to which all\nour efforts should be directed. This is with me no new belief, but one\nwhich I have entertained for many years. It was impressed most strongly\nupon me, as it appears to have been upon others, by the remarkable state\nof affairs and of opinions which we witnessed in this country about nine\nor ten years ago; and everything since that time has confirmed it in my\nmind more and more.\n\nOthers, according to their own statement, received the same impression\nfrom the phenomena of the same period. But the movement had begun\nearlier; nor should I object to call it, as they do, a movement towards\n\"something deeper and truer than satisfied the last century[1].\" It\nbegan, I suppose, in the last ten years of the last century, and has\never since been working onwards, though for a long time slowly and\nsecretly, and with no distinctly marked direction. But still, in\nphilosophy and general literature, there have been sufficient proofs\nthat the pendulum, which for nearly two hundred years had been swinging\none way, was now beginning to swing back again; and as its last\noscillation brought it far from the true centre, so it may be, that its\npresent impulse may be no less in excess, and thus may bring on again,\nin after ages, another corresponding reaction.\n\n[Footnote 1: See Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 27.]\n\nNow if it be asked what, setting aside the metaphor, are the two points\nbetween which mankind has been thus moving to and fro; and what are the\ntendencies in us which, thus alternately predominating, give so\ndifferent a character to different periods of the human history; the\nanswer is not easy to be given summarily, for the generalisation which\nit requires is almost beyond the compass of the human mind. Several\nphenomena appear in each period, and it would be easy to give any one of\nthese as marking its tendency: as, for instance, we might describe one\nperiod as having a tendency to despotism, and another to licentiousness:\nbut the true answer lies deeper, and can be only given by discovering\nthat common element in human nature which, in religion, in politics, in\nphilosophy, and in literature, being modified by the subject-matter of\neach, assumes in each a different form, so that its own proper nature is\nno longer to be recognized. Again, it would be an error to suppose that\neither of the two tendencies which so affect the course of human affairs\nwere to be called simply bad or good. Each has its good and evil nicely\nintermingled; and taking the highest good of each, it would be difficult\nto say which was the more excellent;--taking the last corruption of\neach, we could not determine which, was the more hateful. For so far as\nwe can trace back the manifold streams, flowing some from the eastern\nmountains, and some from the western, to the highest springs from which\nthey rise, we find on the one side the ideas of truth and justice, on\nthe other those of beauty and love;--things so exalted, and so\ninseparably united in the divine perfections, that to set either two\nabove the other were presumptuous and profane. Yet these most divine\nthings separated from each other, and defiled in their passage through\nthis lower world, do each assume a form in human nature of very great\nevil: the exclusive and corrupted love of truth and justice becomes in\nman selfish atheism; the exclusive and corrupted worship of beauty and\nlove becomes in man a bloody and a lying idolatry.\n\nSuch would be the general theory of the two great currents in which\nhuman affairs may be said to have been successively drifting. But real\nhistory, even the history of all mankind, and much more that of any\nparticular age or country, presents a picture far more complicated.\nFirst, as to time: as the vessels in a harbour, and in the open sea\nwithout it, may be seen swinging with the tide at the same moment in\nopposite directions; the ebb has begun in the roadstead, while it is not\nyet high water in the harbour; so one or more nations may be in advance\nof or behind the general tendency of their age, and from either cause\nmay be moving in the opposite direction. Again, the tendency or movement\nin itself is liable to frequent interruptions, and short\ncounter-movements: even when the tide is coming in upon the shore, every\nwave retires after its advance; and he who follows incautiously the\nretreating waters, may be caught by some stronger billow, overwhelming\nagain for an instant the spot which had just been left dry. A child\nstanding by the sea-shore for a few minutes, and watching this, as it\nseems, irregular advance and retreat of the water, could not tell\nwhether it was ebb or flood; and we, standing for a few years on the\nshore of time, can scarcely tell whether the particular movement which\nwe witness is according to or against the general tendency of the whole\nperiod. Farther yet, as these great tendencies are often interrupted, so\nare they continually mixed: that is, not only are their own good and bad\nelements successively predominant, but they never have the world wholly\nto themselves: the opposite tendency exists, in an under-current it may\nbe, and not lightly perceptible; but here and there it struggles to the\nsurface, and mingles its own good and evil with the predominant good and\nevil of its antagonist. Wherefore he who would learn wisdom from the\ncomplex experience of history, must question closely all its phenomena,\nmust notice that which is less obvious as well as that which is most\npalpable; must judge not peremptorily or sweepingly, but with reserves\nand exceptions; not as lightly overrunning a wide region of the truth,\nbut thankful if after much pains he has advanced his landmarks only a\nlittle; if he has gained, as it were, but one or two frontier\nfortresses, in which he can establish himself for ever.\n\nNow, then, when Mr. Newman describes the movement of the present moment\nas being directed towards \"something better and deeper than satisfied\nthe last century,\" this description, although in some sense true, is yet\nin practice delusive; and the delusion which lurks in it is at the root\nof the errors of Mr. Newman and of his friends. They regard the\ntendencies of the last century as wholly evil; and they appear to extend\nthis feeling to the whole period of which the last century was the\nclose, and which began nearly with the sixteenth century. Viewing in\nthis light the last three hundred years, they regard naturally with\nexcessive favour the preceding period, with which they are so strongly\ncontrasted; and not the less because this period has been an object of\nscorn to the times which have followed it. They are drawn towards the\nenemy of their enemy, and they fancy that it must be in all points their\nenemy's opposite. And if the faults of its last decline are too palpable\nto be denied, they ascend to its middle and its earlier course, and\nfinding that its evils are there less flagrant, they abandon themselves\nwholly to the contemplation of its good points, and end with making it\nan idol. There are few stranger and sadder sights than to see men\njudging of whole periods of the history of mankind with the blindness of\nparty-spirit, never naming one century without expressions of contempt\nor abhorrence, never mentioning another but with extravagant and\nundistinguishing admiration.\n\nBut the worst was yet to come. The period which Mr. Newman and his\nfriends so disliked, had, in its religious character, been distinguished\nby its professions of extreme veneration for the Scriptures; in its\nquarrel with the system of the preceding period, it had rested all its\ncause on the authority of the Scripture,--it had condemned the older\nsystem because Scripture could give no warrant for it. On the other\nhand, the partizans of the older system protested against the exclusive\nappeal to Scripture; there was, as they maintained, another authority in\nreligious matters; if their system was not supported in all its points\nby Scripture, it had at least the warrant of Christian antiquity. Thus\nMr. Newman and his friends found that the times which they disliked had\nprofessed to rely on Scripture alone; the times which they loved had\ninvested the Church with equal authority. It was natural then to connect\nthe evils of the iron age, for so they regarded it, with this notion of\nthe sole supremacy of Scripture; and it was no less natural to associate\nthe blessings of their imagined golden age with its avowed reverence for\nthe Church. If they appealed only to Scripture, they echoed the language\nof men whom they abhorred; if they exalted the Church and Christian\nantiquity, they sympathised with a period which they were resolved to\nlove. Their theological writings from the very beginning have too\nplainly shown in this respect the force both of their sympathies and\ntheir antipathies.\n\nThus previously disposed, and in their sense or apprehension of the evil\nof their own times already flying as it were for refuge to the system of\ntimes past, they were overtaken by the political storm of 1831, and the\ntwo following years. That storm rattled loudly, and alarmed many who had\nviewed the gathering of the clouds with hope and pleasure; no wonder,\nthen, if it produced a stormy effect upon those who viewed it as a mere\ncalamity, an evil monster bred out of an evil time, and fraught with\nnothing but mischief. Farther, the government of the country was now,\nfor the first time for many years, in the hands of men who admired the\nspirit of the age, nearly as much as Mr. Newman and his friends abhorred\nit. Thus all things seemed combined against them: the spirit of the\nperiod which they so hated was riding as it were upon the whirlwind;\nthey knew not where its violence might burst; and the government of the\ncountry was, as they thought, driving wildly before it, without\nattempting to moderate its fury. Already they were inclined to recognise\nthe signs of a national apostasy.\n\nBut from this point they have themselves written their own history.--Mr.\nPercival's letter to the editor of the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal,\nwhich was reprinted in the Oxford Herald of January 80, 1841, is really\na document of the highest value. It acquaints us, from the very best\nauthority, with the immediate occasion of the publication of the Tracts\nfor the Times, and with the objects of their writers. It tells us\nwhither their eyes were turned for deliverance; with what charm they\nhoped to allay the troubled waters. Ecclesiastical history would be far\nmore valuable than it is, if we could thus learn the real character and\nviews of every church, or sect, or party, from itself, and not from its\nopponents.\n\nMr. Percival informs us, that the Irish Church Act of 1833, which\nabolished several of the Irish Bishoprics, was the immediate occasion of\nthe publication of the Tracts for the Times; and that the objects of\nthat publication were, to enforce the doctrine of the apostolical\nsuccession, and to preserve the Prayer Book from \"the Socinian leaven,\nwith which we had reason to fear it would be tainted by the\nparliamentary alteration of it, which at that time was openly talked\nof.\" But the second of these objects is not mentioned in the more formal\nstatements which Mr. Percival gives of them; and in what he calls the\n\"matured account\" of the principles of the writers, it is only said,\n\"Whereas there seems great danger at present of attempts at unauthorized\nand inconsiderate innovation as in other matters so especially in the\nservice of our Church, we pledge ourselves to resist any attempt that\nmay be made to alter the Liturgy on insufficient authority: i.e. without\nthe exercise of the free and deliberate judgment of the Church on the\nalterations proposed.\" It would seem, therefore, that what was\nparticularly deprecated was \"the alteration of the Liturgy on\ninsufficient authority,\" without reference to any suspected character of\nthe alteration in itself. But at any rate, as all probability of any\nalteration in the Liturgy vanished very soon after the publication of\nthe tracts began, the other object, the maintaining the doctrine of the\napostolical succession, as it had been the principal one from the\nbeginning, became in a very short time the only one.\n\nThe great remedy, therefore, for the evils of the times, the \"something\ndeeper and truer than satisfied the last century,\" or, at least, the\nmost effectual means of attaining to it, is declared to be the\nmaintenance of the doctrine of apostolical succession. Now let us hear,\nfor it is most important, the grounds on which this doctrine is to be\nenforced, and the reason why so much stress is laid on it. I quote again\nfrom Mr. Percival's letter.\n\n\"Considering, 1. That the only way of salvation is the partaking of the\nbody and blood of our sacrificed Redeemer;\n\n\"2. That the mean expressly authorized by him for that purpose is the\nholy sacrament of his supper;\n\n\"3. That the security by him no less expressly authorized, for the\ncontinuance and due application of that sacrament, is the apostolical\ncommission of the bishops, and under them the presbyters of the church;\n\n\"4. That under the present circumstances of the church in England, there\nis peculiar danger of these matters being slighted and practically\ndisavowed, and of numbers of Christians being left, or tempted to\nprecarious and unauthorized ways of communion, which must terminate\noften in vital apostasy:--\n\n\"We desire to pledge ourselves one to another, reserving our canonical\nobedience, as follows:--\n\n\"1. To be on the watch for all opportunities of inculcating, on all\ncommitted to our charge, a due sense of the inestimable privilege of\ncommunion with our Lord, through the successors of the apostles, and of\nleading them to the resolution to transmit it, by his blessing,\nunimpaired to their children.\"\n\nThen follow two other resolutions: one to provide and circulate books\nand tracts, to familiarize men's minds with this doctrine; and the\nother, \"to do what lies in us towards reviving among churchmen, the\npractice of daily common prayer, and more frequent participation of the\nLord's Supper.\"\n\nThe fourth resolution, \"to resist unauthorized alterations of the\nLiturgy,\" I have already quoted: the fifth and last engages generally to\nplace within the reach of all men, accounts of such points in our\ndiscipline and worship as may appear most likely to be misunderstood or\nundervalued.\n\nThese resolutions were drawn up more than seven years ago, and their\npractical results have not been contemptible. The Tracts for the Times\namount to no fewer than ninety; while the sermons, articles in reviews,\nstories, essays, poems, and writings of all sorts which have enforced\nthe same doctrines, have been also extremely numerous. Nor have all\nthese labours been without fruit: for it is known that a large\nproportion of the clergy have adopted, either wholly or in great part,\nthe opinions and spirit of the Tracts for the Times; and many of the\nlaity have embraced them also.\n\nIt seems also, that in the various publications of their school, the\nobject originally marked out in the resolutions quoted above, has been\nfollowed with great steadiness. The system has been uniform, and its\nseveral parts have held well together. It has, perhaps, been carried on\nof late more boldly, which is the natural consequence of success. It has\nin all points been the direct opposite of what may be called the spirit\nof English protestantism of the nineteenth century: upholding whatever\nthat spirit would depreciate; decrying whatever it would admire. A\nshort statement of the principal views held by Mr. Newman and his\nfriends, will show this sufficiently.\n\n\"The sacraments, and not preaching, are the sources of divine grace.\" So\nit is said in the Advertisement prefixed to the first volume of the\nTracts for the Times, in exact conformity with the preamble to the\nresolutions, which I have already quoted. But the only security for the\nefficacy of the sacraments, is the apostolical commission of the\nbishops, and under them, of the presbyters of the Church. So it is said\nin the preamble to the resolutions. These two doctrines are the\nfoundation of the whole system. God's grace, and our salvation, come to\nus principally through the virtue of the sacraments; the virtue of the\nsacraments depends on the apostolical succession of those who administer\nthem. The clergy, therefore, thus holding in their hands the most\nprecious gifts of the Church, acquire naturally the title of the Church\nitself; the Church, as possessed of so mysterious a virtue as to\ncommunicate to the only means of salvation their saving efficacy,\nbecomes at once an object of the deepest reverence. What wonder if to a\nbody endowed with so transcendant a gift, there should be given also the\nspirit of wisdom to discern all truth; so that the solemn voice of the\nChurch in its creeds, and in the decrees of its general councils, must\nbe received as the voice of God himself. Nor can such a body be supposed\nto have commended any practices or states of life winch are not really\nexcellent; and the duty either of all Christians, or of those at least\nwho would follow the most excellent way. Fasting, therefore, and the\nstate of celibacy, are the one a christian obligation, the other a\nchristian perfection. Again, being members of a body so exalted, and\nreceiving our very salvation in a way altogether above reason, we must\nbe cautious how we either trust to our individual conscience rather\nthan to the command of the Church, or how we venture to exercise our\nreason at all in judging of what the Church teaches; childlike faith and\nchildlike obedience are the dispositions which God most loves. What,\nthen, are they who are not of the Church, who do not receive the\nSacraments from those who can alone give them their virtue? Surely they\nare aliens from God, they cannot claim his covenanted mercies; and the\ngoodness which may be apparent in them, may not be real goodness; God\nmay see that it is false, though to us it appears sincere; but it is\ncertain that they do not possess the only appointed means of salvation;\nand therefore, we must consider their state as dangerous, although, we\nmay not venture to condemn them.\n\nI have not consciously misrepresented the system of Mr. Newman and his\nfriends in a single particular; I have not, to my knowledge, expressed\nany one of their tenets invidiously. An attentive reader may deduce, I\nthink, all the Subordinate points in their teaching from some one or\nmore of the principles which I have given; but I have not wilfully\nomitted any doctrine of importance. And, in every point, the opposition\nto what I may be allowed to call the protestantism of the nineteenth\ncentury is so manifest, that we cannot but feel that the peculiar\ncharacter of the system is to be traced to what I have before\nnoticed--the extreme antipathy of its founders to the spirit which they\nfelt to be predominant in their own age and country.\n\nIt is worth our while to observe this, because fear and passion are not\nthe surest guides to truth, and the rule of contraries is not the rule\nof wisdom. Other men have been indignant against the peculiar evils of\ntheir own time, and from their strong impression of these have seemed to\nlose sight of its good points; but Mr. Newman and his friends appear to\nhate the nineteenth century for its own sake, and to proscribe all\nbelonging to it, whether good or bad, simply because it does belong to\nit.--This diseased state of mind is well shown by the immediate occasion\nof the organization of their party. Mr. Perceval tells us that it was\nthe Act for the dissolution of some of the Irish bishoprics, passed in\n1833, winch first made the authors of the Tracts resolve to commence\ntheir publication. Mr. Perceval himself cannot even now speak of that\nAct temperately; he calls it \"a wanton act of sacrilege,\" \"a monstrous\nact,\" \"an outrage upon the Church;\" and his friends, it may be presumed,\nspoke of it at the time in language at least equally vehement. Now, I am\nnot expressing any opinion upon the justice or expediency of that Act;\nit was opposed by many good men, and its merits or demerits were fairly\nopen to discussion; but would any fair and sensible person speak of it\nwith such extreme abhorrence as it excited in the minds of Mr. Perceval\nand his friends? The Act deprived the Church of no portion of its\nproperty; it simply ordered a different distribution of it, with the\navowed object on the part of its framers of saving the Church from the\nodium and the danger of exacting Church Rates from the Roman Catholics.\nIt did nothing more than what, according to the constitution of the\nChurches of England and Ireland, was beyond all question within its\nlawful authority to do. The King's supremacy and the sovereignty of\nParliament may be good or bad, but they are undoubted facts in the\nconstitution of the Church of England, and have been so for nearly three\nhundred years. I repeat that I am stating no opinion as to the merits of\nthe Irish Church Act of 1833; I only contend, that no man of sound\njudgment would regard it as \"a monstrous act,\" or as \"a wanton\nsacrilege.\" It bore upon it no marks of flagrant tyranny: nor did it\nrestrain the worship of the Church, nor corrupt its faith, nor command\nor encourage anything injurious to men's souls in practice. Luther was\nindignant at the sale of indulgences; and his horror at the selling\nChurch pardons for money was, by God's blessing, the occasion of the\nReformation. The occasion of the new counter-reformation was the\nabolition of a certain number of bishoprics, that their revenues might\nbe applied solely to church purposes; and that the Church might so be\nsaved from a scandal and a danger. The difference of the exciting cause\nof the two movements gives the measure of the difference between the\nReformation of 1517, and the views and objects of Mr. Newman and\nhis friends.\n\nThere are states of nervous excitement, when the noise of a light\nfootstep is distracting. In such a condition were the authors of the\nTracts in 1833, and all their subsequent proceedings have shown that the\ndisorder was still upon them. Beset by their horror of the nineteenth\ncentury, they sought for something most opposite to it, and therefore\nthey turned to what they called Christian antiquity. Had they judged of\ntheir own times fairly, had they appreciated the good of the nineteenth\ncentury as well as its evil, they would have looked for their remedy not\nto the second or third or fourth centuries, but the first; they would\nhave tried to restore, not the Church of Cyprian, or Athanasius, or\nAugustine, but the Church of St. Paul and of St. John. Now, this it is\nmost certain that they have not done. Their appeal has been not to\nScripture, but to the opinions and practices of the dominant party in\nthe ancient Church. They have endeavoured to set those opinions and\npractices, under the name of apostolical tradition, on a level with the\nauthority of the Scriptures. But their unfortunate excitement has made\nthem fail of doing even what they intended to do. It may be true that\nall their doctrines may be found in the writings of those whom they call\nthe Fathers; but the effect of their teaching is different because its\nproportions are altered. Along with their doctrines, there are other\npoints and another spirit prominent in the writings of the earlier\nChristians, which give to the whole a different complexion. The Tracts\nfor the Times do not appear to me to represent faithfully the language\nof Christian antiquity; they are rather its caricature.\n\nStill more is this the case, when we compare the language of Mr. Newman\nand his friends with that of the great divines of the Church of England.\nGranting that many of these believed firmly in apostolical succession;\nthat one or two may have held general councils to be infallible; that\nsome, provoked by the extravagances of the puritans, have spoken\nover-strongly about the authority of tradition; yet the whole works even\nof those who agree with. Mr. Newman in these points, give a view of\nChristianity different from that of the Tracts, because these points,\nwhich in the Tracts stand forward without relief, are in our old divines\ntempered by the admixture of other doctrines, which, without\ncontradicting them, do in fact alter their effect. This applies most\nstrongly, perhaps, to Hooker and Taylor; but it holds good also of Bull\nand Pearson. Pearson's exposition of the article in the Creed relating\nto the Holy Catholic Church is very different from the language of Mr.\nNewman: it is such as, with perhaps one single exception, might be\nsubscribed by a man who did not believe in apostolical succession[2].\nAgain, Pearson is so far from making the creeds an independent\nauthority, co-ordinate with Scripture, that he declares, contrary, I\nsuppose, to all probability, that the Apostles' Creed itself was but a\ndeduction from our present Scriptures of the New Testament[3].\nUndoubtedly the divines of the seventeenth century are more in agreement\nwith the Tracts than the Reformers are; but it is by no means true that\nthis agreement is universal. There is but one set of writers whose minds\nare exactly represented by Mr. Newman and his friends, and these are the\nnonjurors.\n\n[Footnote 2: The sixth and last mark which he gives of the unity of the\nChurch is, \"the unity of discipline and government.\" \"All the Churches\nof God have the same pastoral guides appointed, authorized, sanctified,\nand set apart by the appointment of God, by the direction of the Spirit,\nto direct and lead the people of God in the same way of eternal\nsalvation; as, therefore, there is no Church where there is no order, no\nministry, so where the same order and ministry is, there is the same\nChurch. And this is the unity of regiment and discipline.\" Pearson on\nthe Creed, Art. IX. p. 341, seventh edit. fol. 1701. It would be easy to\nput a construction upon this paragraph which I could agree with; but I\nsuppose that Pearson meant what I hold to be an error. Yet how gently\nand generally is it expressed; and this doubtful paragraph stands alone\namidst seventeen folio pages on the article of the Holy Catholic Church.\nAnd in his conclusion, where he delivers what \"every one ought to intend\nwhen they profess to believe the Holy Catholic Church,\" there is not a\nword about its government; nor is Pearson one of those interpreters who\npervert the perfectly certain meaning of the word \"Catholic\" to favour\ntheir own notions about episcopacy. I could cordially subscribe to every\nword of this conclusion.]\n\n[Footnote 3: \"To believe, therefore, as the word stands in the front of\nthe Creed, ... is to assent to the whole and every part of it as to a\ncertain and infallible truth revealed by God, ... and delivered unto us\nin the writings of the blessed apostles and prophets immediately\ninspired, moved, and acted by God, out of whose writings this brief sum\nof necessary points of faith was first collected.\" (P. 12.) And in the\nparagraph immediately preceding, Pearson had said, \"The household of God\nis built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, who are\ncontinued unto us only in their writings, and by them alone convoy unto\nus the truths which they received from God, upon whose testimony we\nbelieve.\" It appears, therefore, that Pearson not only subscribed the\n6th Article of the Church of England, but also believed it.]\n\nMany reasons, therefore, concur to make it doubtful whether the authors\nof the Tracts have discovered the true remedy for the evils of their\nage; whether they have really inculcated \"something better and deeper\nthan satisfied the last century.\" The violent prejudice which previously\npossessed them, and the strong feelings of passion and fear which led\nimmediately to their first systematic publications, must in the first\ninstance awaken a suspicion as to their wisdom; and this suspicion\nbecomes stronger when we find their writings different from the best of\nthose which they profess to admire, and bearing a close resemblance only\nto those of the nonjurors. A third consideration is also of much\nweight--that their doctrines do not enforce any great points of moral or\nspiritual perfection which other Christians had neglected; nor do they,\nin any especial manner, \"preach Christ.\" In this they offer a striking\ncontrast to the religious movement, if I may so call it, which began\nsome years since in the University at Cambridge. That movement, whatever\nhuman alloy might have mingled with it, bore on it most clear evidence\nthat it was in the main God's work. It called upon men to turn from sin\nand be reconciled to God; it emphatically preached Christ crucified. But\nMr. Newman and his friends have preached as their peculiar doctrine, not\nChrist but the Church; we must go even farther and say, not the Church,\nbut themselves. What they teach has no moral or spiritual excellence in\nitself; but it tends greatly to their own exaltation. They exalt the\nsacraments highly, but all that they say of their virtue, all their\nadmiration of them as so setting forth the excellence of faith, inasmuch\nas in them the whole work is of God, and man has only to receive and\nbelieve, would be quite as true, and quite as well-grounded, if they\nwere to abandon altogether that doctrine which it is their avowed object\nespecially to enforce--the doctrine of apostolical succession.\nReferring again to the preamble of their original resolutions, already\nquoted, we see that the two first articles alone relate to our Lord and\nto his Sacraments; the third, which is the great basis of their system,\nrelates only to the Clergy. Doubtless, if apostolical succession be\nGod's will, it is our duty to receive it and to teach it; but a number\nof clergymen, claiming themselves to have this succession, and insisting\nthat, without it, neither Christ nor Christ's Sacraments will save us,\ndo, beyond all contradiction, preach themselves, and magnify their own\nimportance. They are quite right in doing so, if God has commanded it;\nbut such preaching has no manifest warrant of God in it; if it be\naccording to God, it stands alone amongst his dispensations; his\nprophets and his apostles had a different commission. \"We preach,\" said\nSt. Paul, \"not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your\nservants for Jesus' sake.\" It is certain that the enforcing apostolical\nsuccession as the great object of our teaching is precisely to do that\nvery thing which St. Paul was commissioned not to do.\n\nThis, to my mind, affords a very great presumption that the peculiar\ndoctrines of Mr. Newman and his friends, those which they make it their\nprofessed business to inculcate, are not of God. I am anxious not to be\nmisunderstood in saying this. Mr. Newman and his friends preach many\ndoctrines which are entirely of God; as Christians, as ministers of\nChrist's Church, they preach God's word; and thus, a very large portion\nof their teaching is of God, blessed both to their hearers and to\nthemselves. Nay, even amongst the particular objects to which their own\n\"Resolutions\" pledge them, one is indeed most excellent--\"the revival of\ndaily common prayer, and more frequent participation of the Lord's\nSupper.\" This is their merit, not as Christians generally, but as a\nparty, (I use the word in no offensive sense;) in this respect their\nefforts have done, and are doing great good. But they have themselves\ndeclared that they will especially set themselves to preach apostolical\nsuccession; and it is with reference to this, that I charge them with\n\"preaching themselves;\" it was of this I spoke, when I said that there\nwas a very great presumption that their peculiar doctrines were not\nof God.\n\nAgain, the system which they hold up as \"better and deeper than\nsatisfied the last century\" is a remedy which has been tried once\nalready: and its failure was so palpable, that all the evil of the\neighteenth century was but the reaction from that enormous evil which\nthis remedy, if it be one, had at any rate been powerless to cure.\nApostolical succession, the dignity of the Clergy, the authority of the\nChurch, were triumphantly maintained for several centuries; and their\nfull development was coincident, to say the least, with the corruption\nalike of Christ's religion and Christ's Church. So far were they from\ntending to realize the promises of prophecy, to perfect Christ's body up\nto the measure of the stature of Christ's own fulness, that Christ's\nChurch declined during their ascendancy more and more;--she fell alike\nfrom truth and from holiness; and these doctrines, if they did not cause\nthe evil, were at least quite unable to restrain it. For, in whatever\npoints the fifteenth century differed from the fourth, it cannot be said\nthat it upheld the apostolical succession less peremptorily, or attached\na less value to Church tradition, and Church authority. I am greatly\nunderstating the case, but I am content for the present to do so: I will\nnot say that Mr. Newman's favourite doctrines were the very Antichrist\nwhich corrupted Christianity; I will only say that they did not prevent\nits corruption,--that when they were most exalted Christian truth and\nChristian goodness were most depressed.\n\nAfter all, however, what has failed once may doubtless be successful on\na second trial: it is within possibility, perhaps, that a doctrine,\nalthough destitute of all internal evidence showing it to come from God,\nmay be divine notwithstanding;--revealed for some purposes which we\ncannot fathom, or simply as an exercise of our obedience. All this may\nbe so; and if it can be shown to be so, there remains no other course\nthan to believe God's word, and obey his commandments; only the strength\nof the external evidence must be in proportion to the weakness of the\ninternal. A good man would ask for no sign from heaven to assure him\nthat God commands judgment, mercy, and truth; whatsoever things are\npure, and lovely, and of good report, bear in themselves the seal of\ntheir origin; a seal which to doubt were blasphemy. But the cloud and\nthe lightnings and thunders, and all the signs and wonders wrought in\nEgypt and in the Red Sea, were justly required to give divine authority\nto mere positive ordinances, in which, without such external warrant,\nnone could have recognised the voice of God. We ask of Mr. Newman and\nhis friends to bring some warrant of Scripture for that which they\ndeclare to be God's will. They speak very positively and say, that \"the\nsecurity by our Lord no less expressly authorized for the continuance\nand due application of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is the\napostolical commission of the bishops, and under them the presbyters of\nthe Church.\" They say that our Lord has authorized this \"no less\nexpressly\" than he has authorized the Holy Supper as the mean of\npartaking in his body and blood. What our Lord has said concerning the\ncommunion is not truly represented: he instituted it as one mean of\ngrace among many; not as_the_ mean; neither the sole mean, nor the\nprincipal. But allow, for an instant, that it was instituted as_the_\nmean; and give this sense to those well-known and ever-memorable words\nin which our Lord commanded his disciples to eat the bread and drink of\nthe cup, in remembrance of him. His words commanding us to do this are\nexpress; \"not less express,\" we are told, is his \"sanction of the\napostolical commission of the bishops, as the security for the\ncontinuance and due application of the Sacrament.\" Surely these writers\nallow themselves to pervert language so habitually, that they do not\nconsider when, and with regard to whom, they are doing it. They say that\nour Lord has sanctioned the necessity of apostolical succession, in\norder to secure the continuance and efficacy of the sacrament, \"no less\nexpressly\" than he instituted the sacrament itself. If they had merely\nasserted that he had sanctioned the necessity of apostolical succession,\nwe might have supposed that, by some interpretation of their own, they\nimplied his sanction of it, from words which, to other men, bore no such\nmeaning. But in saying that he has \"expressly sanctioned it,\" they have,\nmost unconsciously, I trust, ascribed their own words to our Lord; they\nmake Mm to say what he has not said, unless they can produce[4] some\nother credible record of his words besides the books of the four\nevangelists and the apostolical epistles.\n\n[Footnote 4: \"Scripture alone contains what remains to us of our Lord's\nteaching. If there be a portion of revelation sacred beyond other\nportions, distinct and remote in its nature from the rest, it must be\nthe words and works of the eternal Son Incarnate. He is the one Prophet\nof the Church, as he is our one Priest and King. His history is as far\nabove any other possible revelation, as heaven is above earth: for in it\nwe have literally the sight of Almighty God in his judgments, thoughts,\nattributes, and deeds, and his mode of dealing with us his creatures.\nNow, this special revelation is in Scripture, and in Scripture only:\ntradition has no part in it.\"--_Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical\nOffice of the Church_. 1837. Pp. 347, 348.]\n\nThat their statement was untrue, and being untrue, that it is a most\ngrave matter to speak untruly of our Lord's commands, are points\nabsolutely certain. But if they recall the assertion, as to the\nexpressness of our Lord's sanction, and mean to say, that his sanction\nis implied, and may be reasonably deduced from what he has said, then I\nanswer, that the deduction ought to be clear, because the doctrine in\nitself bears on it no marks of having had Christ for its author. Yet so\nfar is it from true, that the necessity of apostolical succession, in\norder to give efficacy to the sacrament, may be clearly deduced from any\nrecorded words of our Lord, that there are no words[5] of his from which\nit can be deduced, either probably or plausibly; none with which it has\nany, the faintest, connexion; none from which it could be even\nconjectured that such a tenet had ever been in existence. I am not\nspeaking, it will be observed, of apostolical succession simply; but of\nthe necessity of apostolical succession, as a security for the efficacy\nof the sacrament. That this doctrine comes from God, is a position\naltogether without evidence, probability, or presumption, either\ninternal or external.\n\n[Footnote 5: Since this was written, I have found out, what certainly it\nwas impossible to anticipate beforehand, that our Lord's words, \"Do this\nin remembrance of me,\" are supposed to teach the doctrine of the\npriest's consecrating power. But the passage to which I refer is so\nremarkable that I must quote it in its author's own words. Mr. Newman,\nfor the tract is apparently one of his, observes, that three out of the\nfour Gospels make no mention of the raising of Lazarus. He then goes on,\n\"As the raising of Lazarus is true, though not contained at all in the\nfirst three Gospels; so the gift of consecrating the Eucharist may have\nbeen committed by Christ to the priesthood, though only indirectly\ntaught in any of the four. Will you say I am arguing against our own\nChurch, which says the Scripture 'contains all things necessary to be\nbelieved to salvation?' Doubtless, Scripture _contains_ all things\nnecessary to be _believed_; but there may be things _contained_ which\nare not _on the surface_, and things which belong to the _ritual_, and\nnot to _belief_. Points of faith may lie _under_ the surface: points of\nobservance need not be in Scripture _at all_. The consecrating power is\na point of ritual, yet it _is_ indirectly taught in Scripture, though\nnot brought out, when Christ said, 'Do this,' for he spake to the\napostles, who were priests, not to his disciples generally.\"--_Tracts\nfor the Times_. Tract 85, p. 46.\n\nThis passage is indeed characteristic of the moral and intellectual\nfaults which I have alluded to as marking the writings of the supporters\nof Mr. Newman's system. But what is become of the assertion, that this\nsecurity of the apostolical commission was \"expressly authorized\" by our\nLord, when it is admitted that it is only indirectly taught in\nScripture? And what becomes of the notion, that what our Lord did or\ninstituted may be learned from another source than Scripture, when Mr.\nNewman has most truly stated, in the passage quoted in the preceding\nnote, that our Lord's history, the history of his words and works, \"is\nin Scripture, and Scripture only: tradition has no part in it?\" I pass\nover the surprising state of mind which could imagine a distinction\nbetween things necessary to be believed, and necessary to be done; and\ncould conceive such a distinction to be according to the meaning of our\narticle. It would appear that this shift has been since abandoned, and\nothers, no way less extraordinary, have been attempted in its place; for\nan extraordinary process it must be which tries to reconcile Mr.\nNewman's opinions with the declaration of the sixth article. But now for\nMr. Newman's scriptural proof, that our Lord \"committed to the\npriesthood the gift of consecrating the Eucharist.\" \"When Christ said,\n'Do this,' he spake to the apostles, who were priests, not to his\ndisciples generally.\" This would prove too much, for it would prove that\nnone but the clergy were ordered to receive the communion at all: the\nwords, \"Do this,\" referring, not to any consecration, of which there had\nbeen no word said, but to the eating the bread, and drinking of the cup.\nAgain, when St. Paul says, \"the cup which we bless,'--the bread which we\nbreak,\" it is certain that the word \"we,\" does not refer to himself and\nSosthenes, or to himself and Barnabas, but to himself and the whole\nCorinthian church; for he immediately goes on, \"for we, the whole number\nof us,\" ([Greek: oi polloi] compare Romans xii. 5,) \"are one body, for\nwe all are partakers of the one bread.\" Thirdly, Tertullian expressly\ncontrasts the original institution of our Lord with the church practice\nof his own day, in this very point. \"Eucharisti\u00e6 sacramentum et in\ntempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus\nnee de aliorum manu quam pr\u00e6ridentium sumimus.\" (_De Coron\u00e1 Mililis_,\n3.) I know that Tertullian believes the alteration to have been founded\nupon an apostolical tradition; but he no less names it as a change from\nthe original institution of our Lord; nor does he appear to consider it\nas more than a point of order. Lastly, what shadow of probability is\nthere, and is it not begging the whole question, to assume that our Lord\nspoke to his apostles as priests, and not as representatives of the\nwhole Christian church? His language makes no distinction between his\ndisciples and those who were without; it repels it as dividing his\ndisciples from each other. His twelve disciples were the apostles of the\nchurch, but they were not priests. In such matters our Lord's words\napply exactly, \"One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are\nbrethren.\"]\n\nOn the whole, then, the movement in the church, excited by Mr. Newman\nand his friends, appears to be made in a false direction, and to be\nincapable of satisfying the feeling which prompted it. I have not\nnoticed other presumptions against it, arising from the consequences to\nwhich the original doctrines of the party have since led, or from\ncertain moral and intellectual faults which have marked the writings of\nits supporters. It is enough to say, that the movement originated in\nminds highly prejudiced beforehand, and under the immediate influence of\npassion and fear; that its doctrines, as a whole, resemble the teaching\nof no set of writers entitled to respect, either in the early church, or\nin our own; that they tend, not to Christ's glory, or to the advancement\nof holiness, but simply to the exaltation of the clergy; and that they\nare totally unsupported by the authority of Scripture. They are a plant,\ntherefore, which our heavenly Father has not planted; a speaking in the\nname of the Lord what the Lord has not commanded; hay and stubble,\nbuilt upon the foundation of Christ, which are good for nothing but to\nbe burned.\n\nI have spoken quite confidently of the total absence of all support in\nScripture for Mr. Newman's favourite doctrine of \"the necessity of\napostolical succession, in order to ensure the effect of the\nsacraments.\" This doctrine is very different from that of the Divine\nappointment of episcopacy as a form of government, or even from that of\nthe exclusive lawfulness of that episcopacy which has come down by\nsuccession from the apostles. Much less is it to be confounded with any\nnotions, however exalted, of the efficacy of the sacraments, even though\ncarried to such a length as we read of in the early church, when living\nmen had themselves baptized as proxies for the dead, and when a portion\nof the wine of the communion was placed by the side of a corpse in the\ngrave. Such notions may be superstitious and unscriptural, as indeed\nthey are, but they are quite distinct from a belief in the necessity of\na human priest to give the sacraments their virtue. And, without going\nto such lengths as this, men may overestimate the efficacy of the\nsacraments, to the disparagement of prayer, and preaching, and reading\nthe Scriptures, and yet may be perfectly clear from the opinion which\nmakes this efficacy depend immediately on a human administrator. And so\nagain, men may hold episcopacy to be divine, and the episcopacy of\napostolical succession to be the only true episcopacy, but yet they may\nutterly reject the notion of its being essential to the efficacy of the\nsacraments. It is of this last doctrine only that I assert, in the\nstrongest terms, that it is wholly without support in Scripture, direct\nor indirect, and that it does not minister to godliness.\n\nIn truth, Mr. Newman and his friends are well aware that the Scripture\nwill not support their doctrine, and therefore it is that they have\nproceeded to such, lengths in upholding the authority not of the creeds\nonly, but of the opinions and practices of the ancient church generally;\nand that they try to explain away the clear language of our article,\nthat nothing \"which is neither read therein (i.e. in holy Scripture,)\nnor may be proved thereby, is to be required of any man that it should\nbe believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary\nto salvation.\" It would be one of the most unaccountable phenomena of\nthe human mind, were any man fairly to come to the conclusion that the\nScriptures and the early church were of equal authority, and that the\nauthority of both were truly divine. If any men resolve to maintain\ndoctrines and practices as of divine authority, for which the Scripture\noffers no countenance, they of course are driven to maintain the\nauthority of the church in their own defence; and where they have an\ninterest in holding any particular opinion, its falsehood, however\npalpable, is unhappily no bar to its reception. Otherwise it would seem\nthat the natural result of believing the early church to be of equal\nauthority with the Scripture, would be to deny the inspiration of\neither. For two things so different in several points as the\nChristianity of the Scriptures and that of the early church, may\nconceivably be both false, but it is hard to think that they can both be\nperfectly true.\n\nI am here, however, allowing, what is by no means true, without many\nqualifications, that Mr. Newman's system is that of the early church.\nThe historical inquiry as to the doctrines of the early church would\nlead me into far too wide a field; I may only notice, in passing, how\nmany points require to be carefully defined in conducting such an\ninquiry; as, for instance, what we mean by the term \"early church,\" as\nto time; for that may be fully true of the church in the fourth\ncentury, which is only partially true of it in the third, and only in a\nvery slight degree true of it in the second or first. And again, what do\nwe mean by the term \"early church,\" as to persons; for a few eminent\nwriters are not even the whole clergy; neither is it by any means to be\ntaken on their authority that their views were really those of all the\nbishops and presbyters of the Christian world; but if they were, the\nclergy are not the church, nor can their judgments be morally considered\nas the voice of the church, even if we were to admit that they could at\nany time constitute its voice legally. But, for my present purpose, we\nmay take for granted that Mr. Newman's system as to the pre-eminence of\nthe sacraments, and the necessity of apostolical succession to give them\ntheir efficacy, was the doctrine of the early church; then I say that\nthis system is so different from that of the New Testament, that to\ninvest the two with equal authority is not to make the church system\ndivine, but to make the scriptural system human; or, at the best,\nperishable and temporary, like the ceremonial law of Moses. Either the\nchurch system must be supposed to have superseded the scriptural\nsystem[6], and its unknown authors are the real apostles of our present\nfaith, in which case, we do not see why it should not be superseded in\nits turn, and why the perfect manifestation of Christianity should not\nbe found in the Koran, or in any still later system; or else neither of\nthe two systems can be divine, but the one is merely the human\nproduction of the first century, the other that of the second and third.\nIf this be so, it is clearly open to all succeeding centuries to adopt\nwhichever of the two they choose, or neither.\n\n[Footnote 6: This, it is well known, has been most ably maintained by\nRothe, (_Artf\u00e3nge der Christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung_,\nWittenberg, 1837,) with respect to the origin of episcopacy. He contends\nthat it was instituted by the surviving apostles after the destruction\nof Jerusalem, as an intentional change from the earlier constitution of\nthe church, in order to enable it to meet the peculiar difficulties and\ndangers of the times. To this belongs the question of the meaning of the\nexpression, [Greek: oi tais deuterais ton Apostolon diataxesi\nparakolouthaekotes], in the famous Fragments of Iren\u00e6us, published by\nPfaff, from a manuscript in the library of Turin, and to be found in the\nVenice edition of Iren\u00e6us, 1734, vol. ii. _Fragmentorum_, p. 10. But\nthen Rothe would admit that if the apostles altered what they themselves\nhad appointed, it would follow that neither their earlier nor their\nlater institutions were intended to be for all times and all places, but\nwere simply adapted to a particular state of circumstances, and were\nalterable when that state was altered: in short, whatever institutions\nthe apostles changed were shown to be essentially changeable; otherwise\ntheir early institution was defective, which cannot be conceived. And\nthus it may well be that the early church may have altered, in some\npoints, the first institutions of the apostles, and may have been guided\nby God's Spirit in doing so; but the error consists in believing that\nthe now institutions were to be of necessity more permanent than those\nwhich they succeeded; in supposing that either the one or the other\nbelong to the eternal truths and laws of Christ's religion, when they\nbelong, in fact, to the essentially changeable regulations of\nhis church.]\n\nTo such consequences are those driven who maintain the divine authority\nof the system of Mr. Newman. Assuredly the thirst for \"something deeper\nand truer than satisfied the last century,\" will not be allayed by a\ndraught so scanty and so vapid; but after the mirage has beguiled and\ndisappointed him for a season, the traveller presses on the more eagerly\nto the true and living well.\n\nIn truth, the evils of the last century were but the inevitable fruits\nof the long ascendency of Mr. Newman's favourite principles. Christ's\nreligion had been corrupted in the long period before the Reformation,\nbut it had ever retained many of its main truths, and it was easy, when\nthe appeal was once made to Scripture, to sweep away the corruptions,\nand restore it in its perfect form; but Christ's church had been\ndestroyed so long and so completely, that its very idea was all but\nlost, and to revive it actually was impossible. What had been known\nunder that name,--I am speaking of Christ's church, be it observed, as\ndistinguished from Christ's religion,--was so great an evil, that,\nhopeless of drawing any good from it, men looked rather to Christ's\nreligion as all in all; and content with having destroyed the false\nchurch, never thought that the scheme of Christianity could not be\nperfectly developed without the restoration of the true one. But the\nwant was deeply felt, and its consequences were deplorable. At this\nmoment men are truly craving something deeper than satisfied the last\ncentury; they crave to have the true church of Christ, which the last\ncentury was without. Mr. Newman perceives their want, and again offers\nthem that false church which is worse than none at all.\n\nThe truths of the Christian religion are to be sought for in the\nScripture alone; they are the same at all times and in all countries.\nWith the Christian church it is otherwise; the church is not a\nrevelation concerning the unchangeable and eternal God, but an\ninstitution to enable changeable man to apprehend the unchangeable.\nBecause man is changeable, the church is also changeable; changeable,\nnot in its object, which is for ever one and the same, but in its means\nfor effecting that object; changeable in its details, because the same\ntreatment cannot suit various diseases, various climates, various\nconstitutional peculiarities, various external influences.\n\nThe Scripture, then, which is the sole and direct authority for all the\ntruths of the Christian religion, is not in the same way, an authority\nfor the constitution and rules of the Christian church; that is, it does\nnot furnish direct authority, but guides us only by analogy: or it\ngives us merely certain main principles, which we must apply to our own\nvarious circumstances. This is shown by the remarkable fact, that\nneither our Lord nor his apostles have left any commands with respect to\nthe constitution and administration of the church generally. Commands in\nabundance they have left us on moral matters; and one commandment of\nanother kind has been added, the commandment, namely, to celebrate the\nLord's Supper. \"Do this in remembrance of me,\" are our Lord's words; and\nSt. Paul tells us, if we could otherwise have doubted it, that this\nremembrance is to be kept up for ever. \"As often as ye eat that bread or\ndrink that cup ye do show the Lord's death _till he come_.\" This is the\none perpetual ordinance of the Christian church, and this is commanded\nto be kept perpetually. But its other institutions are mentioned\nhistorically, as things done once, but not necessarily to be always\nrepeated: nay, they are mentioned without any details, so that we do not\nalways know what their exact form was in their original state, and\ncannot, therefore, if we would, adopt it as a perpetual model. Nor is it\nunimportant to observe that institutions are recorded as having been\ncreated on the spur of the occasion, if I may so speak, not as having\nformed a part of an original and universal plan. A great change in the\ncharacter of the deacon, or subordinate minister's office, is introduced\nin consequence of the complaints of the Hellenist Christians: the number\nof the apostles is increased by the addition of Paul and Barnabas, not\nappointed, as Matthias had been, by the other apostles themselves, but\nby the prophets and teachers of the church of Antioch. Again, the\nchurches founded by St. Paul were each, at first, placed by him under\nthe government of several presbyters; but after his imprisonment at\nRome, finding that they were become greatly corrupted, he sends out\nsingle persons, in two instances, with full powers to remodel these\nchurches, and with authority to correct the presbyters themselves: yet\nit does not appear that these especial[7] visitors were to alter\npermanently the earlier constitution of the churches; nor that they were\nsent generally to all the churches which St. Paul had founded. Indeed,\nit appears evident from the epistle of Clement, that the original\nconstitution of the church of Corinth still subsisted in his time; the\ngovernment was still vested not in one man, but in many[8]. Yet a few\nyears later the government of a single man, as we see from Ignatius, was\nbecome very general; and Ignatius, as is well known, wishes to invest it\nwith absolute power[9]. I believe that he acted quite wisely according\nto the circumstances of the church at that period; and that nothing less\nthan a vigorous unity of government could have struggled with the\ndifficulties and dangers of that crisis. But no man can doubt that the\nsystem which Ignatius so earnestly recommends was very different from\nthat which St. Paul had instituted fifty or sixty years earlier.\n\n[Footnote 7: The command, \"to appoint elders in every city,\" is given to\nTitus, according to Paul's practice when he first formed churches of the\nGentiles (Acts xiv, 2.) Nor did Timothy, or Titus, remain permanently at\nEphesus, or in Crete. Timothy, when St. Paul's second Epistle was\nwritten to him, was certainly not at Ephesus, but apparently in Pontus;\nand Titus, at the same period, was gone to Dalmatia: nor indeed was he\nto remain in Crete beyond the summer of the year in which St. Paul's\nEpistle was written; he was to meet Paul, in the winter, at Nicopolis.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Only elders are spoken of as governing the church of\nCorinth. It is impossible to understand clearly the nature of the\ncontest, and of the party against which Clement's Epistle is directed.\nWhere he wishes the heads of that party to say, [Greek: ei di eme stasis\nkai eris kai schismata, ekchoro, apeimi, ou ean, boulaesthe, kai poio,\nta, prostassomena upo tou plaethous], c. 54, it would seem as if they\nhad been endeavouring to exercise a despotic authority over the church,\nin defiance of the general feeling, as well as of the existing\ngovernment, like those earlier persons at Corinth, whom St. Paul\ndescribes, in his second Epistle, xi. 20; and like Diotrephes, mentioned\nby St. John, 3 Epist. 9, 10. But in a society where all power must have\ndepended on the consent of those subject to it, how could any one\nexercise a tyranny against the will of the majority, as well as against\nthe authority of the Apostles? And [Greek: ta prostassomena upo tou\nplaethous] must signify, I think, \"the bidding of the society at large.\"\nCompare for this use of [Greek: plaethos], Ignatius, Smyrna. 8;\nTrallian. 1, 8. A conjecture might be offered as to the solution of this\ndifficulty, but it would lead mo into too long a discussion.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Insomuch that he wished all marriages to be solemnized with\nthe consent and approbation of the bishop, [Greek: meta gnomaes tou\nepiskopou], that they might be \"according to God, and not according to\npassion;\" [Greek: kapa Theon kai mae kat epithomian].--_Ad.\nPolycarp_. 5.]\n\nOn two points, however,--points not of detail, but of principle,--the\nScripture does seem to speak decisively. 1st. The whole body of the\nchurch was to take an active share in its concerns; the various\nfaculties of its various members were to perform their several parts: it\nwas to be a living society, not an inert mass of mere hearers and\nsubjects, who were to be authoritatively taught and absolutely ruled by\none small portion of its members. It is quite consistent with this,\nthat, at particular times, the church should centre all its own power\nand activity in the persons of its rulers. In the field, the imperium of\nthe Roman consul was unlimited; and even within the city walls, the\nsenate's commission in times of imminent danger, released him from all\nrestraints of law; the whole power of the state was, for the moment,\nhis, and his only. Such temporary despotisms are sometimes not expedient\nmerely, but necessary: without them society would perish. I do not,\ntherefore, regard Ignatius's epistles as really contradictory to the\nidea of the church conveyed to us in the twelfth chapter of St. Paul's\nFirst Epistle to the Corinthians: I believe that the dictatorship, so to\nspeak, which Ignatius claims for the bishop in each church, was required\nby the circumstances of the case; but to change the temporary into the\nperpetual dictatorship, was to subvert the Roman constitution; and to\nmake Ignatius's language the rule, instead of the exception, is no less\nto subvert the Christian church. Wherever the language of Ignatius is\nrepeated with justice, there the church must either be in its infancy,\nor in its dotage, or in some extraordinary crisis of danger; wherever it\nis repeated, as of universal application, it destroys, as in fact it has\ndestroyed, the very life of Christ's institution.\n\nBut, 2d, the Christian church was absolutely and entirely, at all times,\nand in all places, to be without a human priesthood. Despotic government\nand priesthood are things perfectly distinct from one another. Despotic\ngovernment might be required, from time to time, by this or that portion\nof the Christian church, as by other societies; for government is\nessentially changeable, and all forms, in the manifold varieties of the\ncondition of society, are, in their turn, lawful and beneficial. But a\npriesthood belongs to a matter not so varying--the relations subsisting\nbetween God and man. These relations were fixed for the Christian church\nfrom its very foundation, being, in fact, no other than the main truths\nof the Christian religion; and they bar, for all time, the very notion\nof an earthly priesthood. They bar it, because they establish the\neverlasting priesthood of our Lord, which leaves no place for any other;\nthey bar it, because priesthood is essentially mediation; and they\nestablish one Mediator between God and man--the Man Christ Jesus. And,\ntherefore, the notion of Mr. Newman and his friends, that the sacraments\nderive their efficacy from the apostolical succession of the minister,\nis so extremely unchristian, that it actually deserves to be called\nanti-christian; for there is no point of the priestly office, properly\nso called, in which the claim of the earthly priest is not absolutely\nprecluded. Do we want him for sacrifice? Nay, there is no place for him\nat all; for our one atoning Sacrifice has been once offered; and by its\nvirtue we are enabled to offer daily our spiritual sacrifices of\nourselves, which no other man can by possibility offer for us. Do we\nwant him for intercession? Nay, there is One who ever liveth to make\nintercession for us, through whom we have access to ([Greek:\nprosalogaen], admission to the presence of) the Father, and for whose\nsake, Paul, and Apollos, and Peter, and things present, and things to\ncome, are all ours already. His claim can neither be advanced or\nreceived without high dishonour to our true Priest and to his blessed\ngospel. If circumcision could not be practised, as necessary, by a\nbeliever in Christ, without its involving a forfeiture of the benefits\nof Christ's salvation; how much more does St. Paul's language apply to\nthe invention of an earthly priesthood--a priesthood neither after the\norder of Aaron, nor yet of Melchisedek; unlawful alike under the law and\nthe gospel.\n\nIt is the invention of the human priesthood, which falling in,\nunhappily, with the absolute power rightfully vested in the Christian\nchurch during the troubles of the second century, fixed the exception as\nthe rule, and so in the end destroyed the church. It pretended that the\nclergy were not simply rulers and teachers,--offices which, necessarily\nvary according to the state of those who are ruled and taught,--but that\nthey were essentially mediators between God and the church; and as this\nlanguage would have sounded too profanely,--for the mediator between\nGod and the church can be none but Christ,--so the clergy began to draw\nto themselves the attributes of the church, and to call the church by a\ndifferent name, such as the faithful, or the laity; so that to speak of\nthe church mediating for the people did not sound so shocking, and the\ndoctrine so disguised found ready acceptance. Thus the evil work was\nconsummated; the great majority of the members of the church, were\nvirtually disfranchised; the minority retained the name, but the\ncharacter of the institution was utterly corrupted.\n\nTo revive Christ's church, therefore, is to expel the antichrist of\npriesthood, (which, as it was foretold of him, \"as God, sitteth in the\ntemple of God, showing himself that he is God,\") and to restore its\ndisfranchised members,--the laity,--to the discharge of their proper\nduties in it, and to the consciousness of their paramount importance.\nThis is the point which I have dwelt upon in the XXXVIII^{th} Lecture,\nand which is closely in connection with the point maintained in the\nXL^{th}; and all who value the inestimable blessings of Christ's church\nshould labour in arousing the laity to a sense of their great share in\nthem. In particular, that discipline, which is one of the greatest of\nthose blessings, never can, and, indeed, never ought to be restored,\ntill the Church resumes its lawful authority, and puts an end to the\nusurpation of its powers by the clergy. There is a feeling now awakened\namongst the lay members of our Church, which, if it can but be rightly\ndirected, may, by God's blessing, really arrive at something truer and\ndeeper than satisfied the last century, or than satisfied the last\nseventeen centuries. Otherwise, whatever else may be improved, the laity\nwill take care that church discipline shall continue to slumber, and\nthey will best serve the church by doing so. Much may be done to spread\nthe knowledge of Christ's religion; new churches may be built; new\nministers appointed to preach the word and administer the sacraments;\nthose may hear who now cannot hear; many more sick persons may be\nvisited; many more children may receive religious instruction: all this\nis good, and to be received with sincere thankfulness; but, with a\nknowledge revealed to us of a still more excellent power in Christ's\nchurch, and with the abundant promises of prophecy in our hands, can we\nrest satisfied with the lesser and imperfect good, which strikes thrice\nand stays? But, if the zeal of the lay members of our Church be directed\nby the principles of Mr. Newman, then the result will be, not merely a\nlesser good, but one fearfully mixed with evil--Christian religion\nprofaned by anti-christian fables, Christian holiness marred by\nsuperstition and uncharitableness; Christian wisdom and Christian\nsincerity scoffed at, reviled, and persecuted out of sight. This is\ndeclared to us by the sure voice of experience; this was the fruit of\nthe spirit of priestcraft, with its accompaniments of superstitious\nrites and lying traditions, in the last decline of the Jewish church;\nthis was the fruit of the same spirit, with the same accompaniments, in\nthe long decay of the Christian church; although, the indestructible\nvirtue of Christ's gospel was manifest in the midst of the evil, and\nChrist, in every age and in every country, has been known with saving\npower by some of his people, and his church, in her worst corruptions,\nhas taught many divinest truths, has inculcated many holiest virtues.\n\nWhen the tide is setting strongly against us, we can scarcely expect to\nmake progress; it is enough if we do not drift along with it. Mr.\nNewman's system is now at the flood; it is daily making converts; it is\ndaily swelled by many of those who neither love it nor understand it in\nitself, but who hope to make it serve their purposes, or who like to\nswim with the stream. A strong profession, therefore, of an opposite\nsystem must expect, at the present moment, to meet with little favour;\nnor, indeed, have I any hope of turning the tide, which will flow for\nits appointed season, and its ebb does not seem to be at hand. But\nwhilst the hurricane rages, those exposed to it may well encourage one\nanother to hold fast their own foundations against it; and many are\nexposed to it in whose welfare I naturally have the deepest interest,\nand in whom old impressions may be supposed to have still so much force\nthat I may claim from them, at least, a patient hearing. I am anxious to\nshow them that Mr. Newman's system is to be opposed not merely on\nnegative grounds, as untrue, but as obstructing that perfect and\npositive truth, that perfection of Christ's church, which the last\ncentury, it may be, neglected, but which I value and desire as earnestly\nas it can be valued and desired by any man alive. My great objection to\nMr. Newman's system is, that it destroys Christ's church, and sets up an\nevil in its stead. We do not desire merely to hinder the evil from\noccupying the ground, and to leave it empty; that has been, undoubtedly,\nthe misfortune, and partly the fault of Protestantism; but we desire to\nbuild on the holy ground a no less holy temple, not out of our own\ndevices, but according to the teaching of Christ himself, who has given\nus the outline, and told us what should be its purposes.\n\nThe true church of Christ would offer to every faculty of our nature its\nproper exercise, and would entirely meet all our wants. No wise man\ndoubts that the Reformation was imperfect, or that in the Romish system\nthere were many good institutions, and practices, and feelings, which it\nwould be most desirable to restore amongst ourselves. Daily church\nservices, frequent communions, memorials of our Christian calling\ncontinually presented to our notice, in crosses and way-side oratories;\ncommemorations of holy men, of all times and countries; the doctrine of\nthe communion of saints practically taught; religious orders, especially\nof women, of different kinds, and under different rules, delivered only\nfrom the snare and sin of perpetual vows; all these, most of which are\nof some efficacy for good, even in a corrupt church, belong no less to\nthe true church, and would there be purely beneficial. If Mr. Newman's\nsystem attracts good and thinking men, because it seems to promise them\nall these things, which in our actual Church are not to be found, let\nthem remember, that these things belong to the perfect church no less\nthan to that of the Romanists and of Mr. Newman, and would flourish in\nthe perfect church far more healthily. Or, again, if any man admires Mr.\nNewman's system for its austerities, if he regards fasting as a positive\nduty, he should consider that these might be transferred also to the\nperfect church, and that they have no necessary connexion with the\npeculiar tenets of Mr. Newman. We know that the Puritans were taunted by\ntheir adversaries for their frequent fasts, and the severity of their\nlives; and they certainly were far enough from agreeing with Mr. Newman.\nWhatever there is of good, or self-denying, or ennobling, in his system,\nis altogether independent of his doctrine concerning the priesthood. It\nis that doctrine which is the peculiarity of his system and of Romanism;\nit is that doctrine which constitutes the evil of both, which\nover-weighs all the good accidentally united with it, and makes the\nsystems, as such, false and anti-christian. Nor can any human being find\nin this doctrine anything of a beneficial tendency either to his\nintellectual, his moral, or his spiritual nature. If mere reverence be a\nvirtue, without reference to its object, let us, by all means, do\nhonour to the virtue of those who fell down to the stock of a tree; and\nlet us lament the harsh censure which charged them with \"having a lie in\ntheir right hand[10].\"\n\n[Footnote 10: The language which Mr. Newman and his friends have allowed\nthemselves to hold, in admiration of what they call reverential and\nsubmissive faith, might certainly be used in defence of the lowest\nidolatry; what they have dared to call rationalistic can plead such high\nand sacred authority in its favour, that if I were to quote some of the\nlanguage of the \"Tracts for the Times,\" and place by the side of it\ncertain passages from the New Testament, Mr. Newman and his friends\nwould appear to have been writing blasphemy. It seems scarcely possible\nthat they could have remembered what is said in St. Matthew xv. 9-20,\nand who said it, when they have called it rationalism to deny a\nspiritual virtue in things that are applied to the body.]\n\nWhat does the true and perfect church want, that she should borrow from\nthe broken cisterns of idolatry? Holding all those truths in which the\nclear voice of God's word is joined by the accordant confession of God's\npeople in all ages; holding all the means of grace of which she was\ndesigned to be the steward--her common prayers, her pure preaching, her\nuncorrupted sacraments, her free and living society, her wise and\nsearching discipline, her commemorations and memorials of God's mercy\nand grace, whether shown in her Lord himself, or in his and her\nmembers;--looking lovingly upon her elder sisters, the ancient churches,\nand delighting to be in communion with them, as she hopes that her\nyounger sisters, the churches of later days, will delight to be in\ncommunion with her;--what has she not, that Christ's bride should have?\nwhat has she not, that Mr. Newman's system can give her? But because she\nloves her Lord, and stands fast in his faith, and has been enlightened\nby his truth, she will endure no other mediator than Christ, she will\nrepose her trust only on his word, she will worship in the light, and\nwill abhor the words, no less than the works, of darkness. Her sisters,\nthe elder churches, she loves and respects as she would be herself loved\nand respected; but she will not, and may not, worship them, nor even,\nfor their sakes, believe error to be truth, or foolishness to be wisdom.\nShe dare not hope that she can be in all things a perfect guide and\nexample to the churches that shall come after her; as neither have the\nchurches before her been in all things a perfect guide and example to\nherself. She would not impose her yoke upon future generations, nor will\nshe submit her own neck to the yoke of antiquity. She honours all men,\nbut makes none her idol; and she would have her own individual members\nregard her with honour, but neither would she be an idol to them. She\ndreads especially that sin of which her Lord has so emphatically warned\nher--the sin against the Holy Ghost. She will neither lie against him by\ndeclaring that he is where his fruits are not manifested; nor blaspheme\nhim, by saying that he is not where his fruits are. Rites and ordinances\nmay be vain, prophets may be false, miracles may be miracles of Satan;\nbut the signs of the Holy Spirit, truth and holiness, can never be\nineffectual, can never deceive, can never be evil; where they are, and\nonly where they are, there is God.\n\nThere are states of falsehood and wickedness so monstrous, that, to use\nthe language of Eastern mythology, the Destroyer God is greater than the\nCreator or the Preserver, and no good can be conceived so great as the\ndestruction of the existing evil. But ordinarily in human affairs\ndestruction and creation should go hand in hand; as the evergreen shrubs\nof our gardens do not cast their old leaves till the young ones are\nready to supply their place. Great as is the falsehood of Mr. Newman's\nsystem, it would be but an unsatisfactory work to clear it away, if we\nhad no positive truth to offer in its room. But the thousands of good\nmen whom it has beguiled, because it professed to meet the earnest\ncraving of their minds for a restoration of Christ's church with power,\nneed not fear to open their eyes to its hollowness; like the false\nmiracles of fraud or sorcery, it is but the counterfeit of a real truth.\nThe restoration of the church, is, indeed, the best consummation of all\nour prayers, and all our labours; it is not a dream, not a prospect to\nbe seen only in the remotest distance; it is possible, it lies very near\nus; with God's blessing it is in the power of this very generation to\nbegin and make some progress in the work. If the many good, and wise,\nand influential laymen of our Church would but awake to their true\nposition and duties, and would labour heartily to procure for the church\na living organization and an effective government, in both, of which the\nlaity should be essential members, then, indeed, the church would become\na reality[11]. This is not Erastianism, or rather, it is not what is\ncommonly cried down under that name; it is not the subjection of the\nchurch to the state, which, indeed, would be a most miserable and most\nunchristian condition; but it would be the deliverance of the church,\nand its exaltation to its own proper sovereignty. The members of one\nparticular profession are most fit to administer a system in part, most\nunfit to legislate for it or to govern it: we could ill spare the\nability and learning of our lawyers, but we surely should not wish to\nhave none but lawyers concerned even, in the administration of justice,\nmuch less to have none but lawyers in the government or in parliament.\nWhat is true of lawyers with regard to the state, is no less true of the\nclergy with regard to the church; indispensable as ministers and\nadvisers, they cannot, without great mischief, act as sole judges, sole\nlegislators, sole governors. And this is a truth so palpable, that the\nclergy, by pressing such a claim, merely deprive the church of its\njudicial, legislative, and executive functions; whilst the common sense\nof the church will not allow them to exercise these powers, and, whilst\nthey assert that no one else may exercise them, the result is, that they\nare not exercised at all, and the essence of the church is destroyed.\n\n[Footnote 11: The famous saying, \"extra ecclesiam nulla salus,\" is, in\nits idea, a most divine truth; historically and in fact it may be, and\noften has been, a practical falsehood. If the truths of Christ's\nreligion were necessarily accessible only to the members of some visible\nchurch, then it would be true always, inasmuch as to be out of the\nchurch would then be the same thing as to be without Christ; and, as a\nsociety, the church ought so to attract to itself all goodness, and by\nits internal organization, so to encourage all goodness, that nothing\nwould be without its pale but extreme wickedness, or extreme ignorance;\nand he who were voluntarily to forfeit its spiritual advantages, would\nbe guilty of moral suicide; so St. Paul calls the church the pillar and\nground of truth; that is, it was so in its purpose and idea; and he\ntherefore conjures Timothy to walk warily in it, and to take heed that\nwhat ought to be the pillar and ground of truth should not be profaned\nby fables, and so be changed into a pillar of falsehood. But to say\nuniversally, as an historical fact, that \"extra ecclesiam nulla salus,\"\nmay be often to utter one of the worst of falsehoods. A ferry is set up\nto transport men over an unfordable river, and it might be truly said\nthat \"extra navem nulla salus;\" there is no other safe way, speaking\ngenerally, of getting over; but the ferryman has got the plague, and if\nyou go in the boat with him, you will catch it and die. In despair, a\nman plunges into the water, and swims across; would not the ferryman be\nguilty of a double falsehood who should call out to this man, \"extra\nnavem nulla salus,\" insisting that he had not swum over, when he had,\nand saying that his boat would have carried him safely, whereas it would\nhave killed him?]\n\nThe first step towards the restoration of the church seems to be the\nrevival of the order of deacons; which might be effected without any\nother change in our present system than a repeal of all laws, canons, or\ncustoms which prohibit a deacon from following a secular calling, which\nconfer on him any civil exemptions, or subject him to any civil\ndisqualifications. The Ordination Service, with the subscription to the\nArticles, would remain perfectly unaltered; and as no deacon can hold\nany benefice, it is manifest that the proposed measure would in no way\ninterfere with the rights or duties of the order of presbyters, or\npriests, which would remain precisely what they are at present. But the\nbenefit in large towns would be enormous, if, instead of the present\nsystem of district visiting by private individuals, excellent as that is\nwhere there is nothing better, we could have a large body of deacons,\nthe ordained ministers of the church, visiting the sick, managing\ncharitable subscriptions, and sharing with their presbyter in those\nstrictly clerical duties, which now, in many cases, are too much for the\nhealth and powers of the strongest. Yet a still greater advantage would\nbe found in the link thus formed between the clergy and laity by the\nrevival of an order appertaining in a manner to both. Nor would it be a\nlittle thing that many who now become teachers in some dissenting\ncongregation, not because they differ from our Articles, or dislike our\nLiturgy, but because they cannot afford to go to the universities, and\nhave no prospect of being maintained by the church, if they were to give\nup their secular callings, would, in all human probability, be glad to\njoin the church, as deacons, and would thus be subject to her\nauthorities, and would be engaged in her service, instead of being\naliens to her, if not enemies.\n\nWhen we look at the condition of our country: at the poverty and\nwretchedness of so large a portion of the working classes; at the\nintellectual and moral evils which certainly exist among the poor, but\nby no means amongst the poor only; and when we witness the many partial\nattempts to remedy these evils--attempts benevolent indeed and wise, so\nfar as they go, but utterly unable to strike to the heart of the\nmischief; can any Christian doubt that here is the work for the church\nof Christ to do; that none else can do it; and that with the blessing of\nher Almighty Head she can? Looking upon the chaos around us, one power\nalone can reduce it into order, and fill it with light and life. And\ndoes he really apprehend the perfections and high calling of Christ's\nchurch; does he indeed fathom the depths of man's wants, or has he\nlearnt to rise to the fulness of the stature of their divine remedy, who\ncomes forward to preach to us the necessity of apostolical succession?\nGrant even that it was of divine appointment, still as it is\ndemonstrably and palpably unconnected with holiness, as it would be a\nmere positive and ceremonial ordinance, it cannot be the point of most\nimportance to insist on; even if it be a sin to neglect this, there are\nso many far weightier matters equally neglected, that it would be\nassuredly no Christian prophesying which were to strive to direct our\nchief attention to this. But the wholly unmoral character of this\ndoctrine, which if it were indeed of God, would make it a single\nmysterious exception to all the other doctrines of the Gospel, is, God\nbe thanked, not more certain than its total want of external evidence;\nthe Scripture disclaims it, Christ himself condemns it.\n\nI have written at considerable length: yet so vast is the subject, that\nI may seem to some to have written superficially, and to have left my\nstatements without adequate support. I can only say that no one\nparagraph has been written hastily, nor in fact is there one the\nsubstance of which has not been for several years in my mind; indeed, in\nmany instances, not only the substance, but the proofs in detail have\nbeen actually written: but to have inserted them here would have been\nimpracticable, as they would have been in themselves a volume. Neither\nhave I knowingly remained in ignorance of any argument which may have\nbeen used in defence of Mr. Newman's system; I have always desired to\nknow what he and his friends say, and on what grounds they say it;\nalthough, as I have not read the Tracts for the Times regularly, I may\nhave omitted something which it would have been important to notice.\nFinally, in naming Mr. Newman as the chief author of the system which I\nhave been considering, I have in no degree wished to make the question\npersonal; but Mr. Percival's letter authorizes us to consider him as one\nof the authors of it; and as I have never had any personal acquaintance\nwith him, I could mention his name with no shock to any private feelings\neither in him or in myself. But I have spoken of him simply as the\nmaintainer of certain doctrines, not as maintaining them in any\nparticular manner, far less as actuated by any particular motives. I\nbelieve him to be in most serious error; I believe his system to be so\ndestructive of Christ's church, that I earnestly pray, and would labour\nto the utmost of my endeavours for its utter overthrow: but on the other\nhand, I will not be tempted to confound the authors of the system with\nthe system itself; for I know that the most mischievous errors have been\npromulgated by men who yet have been neither foolish nor wicked; and I\nnothing doubt that there are many points in Mr. Newman, in which I might\nlearn truth from his teaching, and should be glad if I could come near\nhim in his practice.\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nIn order to prevent the possibility of misunderstanding, it is proper to\nrepeat what has been often said by others, that the English word\n\"priest\" has two significations,--the one according to its etymology,\nthrough the French _pr\u00eatre_, or _prestre_, and the Latin _presbyterus_,\nfrom the Greek [Greek: presbuteros]; in which sense it is used in our\nLiturgy and Rubrics, and signifies merely \"one belonging to the order of\nPresbyters,\" as distinguished from the other two orders of bishops and\ndeacons. But the other signification of the word \"priest,\" and which we\nuse, as I think, more commonly, is the same with the meaning of the\nLatin word _sacerdos_, and the Greek word [Greek: iepeus], and means,\n\"one who stands as a mediator between God and the people, and brings\nthem to God by the virtue of certain ceremonial acts which he performs\nfor them, and which they could not perform for themselves without\nprofanation, because they are at a distance from God, and cannot, in\ntheir own persons, venture to approach towards him.\" In this sense of\nthe word \"priest,\" the term is not applied to the ministers of the\nChristian church, either by the Scripture, or by the authorized\nformularies of the Church of England; although, in the other sense, as\nsynonymous with Presbyters, it is used in our Prayer Book repeatedly. Of\ncourse, not one word of what I have written is meant to deny the\nlawfulness and importance of the order of Presbyters in the church; I\nhave only spoken against a priesthood, in the other sense of the word,\nin which a \"priest\" means \"a mediator between God and man;\" in that\nsense, in short, in which the word is not a translation of [Greek:\npresbuteros], but [iereus].\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGENESIS iii. 22.\n\n_And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know\ngood and evil_.\n\n\nThis is declared to be man's condition after the Fall. I will not\nattempt to penetrate into that which is not to be entered into, nor to\npretend to discover all that may be concealed beneath the outward, and\nin many points clearly parabolical, form of the account of man's\ntemptation and sin. But that condition to which his sin brought him is\nour condition; with that, undoubtedly, we are concerned; that must be\nthe foundation of all sound views of human nature; the double fact\nemployed in the word fall is of the last importance; the fact on the one\nhand of our present nature being evil, the fact on the other hand that\nthis present nature is not our proper nature; that the whole business of\nour lives is to cast it off, and to return to that better and holy\nnature, which, in truth, although not in fact, is the proper nature\nof man.\n\nAll individual experience, then, and all history begins in something\nwhich is evil; all our course, whether as individuals or as nations, is\na progress, an advance, a leaving behind us something bad, and a going\nforwards towards something that is good. But individual experience, and\nhistory apart from Christianity, would make us regard this progress as\nfearfully uncertain. Clear it is that we are in an evil case; we have\nlost our way; we are like men who are bewildered in those endless\nforests of reeds which line some of the great American rivers; if we\nstay where we are, the venomous snakes may destroy us; or the deadly\nmarsh air when night comes on will be surely fatal; it is death to\nremain, but yet if we move, we know not what way will lead us out, and\nit may be that, while seeming to advance, we shall but be going round\nand round, and shall at last find ourselves hard by the place from which\nwe set out in the beginning. Nay, we may even feel a doubt,--a doubt, I\nsay, though not a reasonable belief,--but a doubt which at times would\npress us sorely, whether the tangled thicket in which we are placed has\nany end at all; whether our fond notions of a clear and open space, a\npure air, and a fruitful and habitable country, are not altogether\nmerely imaginary; whether the whole world be not such a region of death\nas the spot in which we are actually prisoned; whether there remains any\nthing for us, but to curse our fate, and lie down and die. Under such\ncircumstances, although we should admire the spirit which hoped against\nhope; which would make an effort for deliverance; which would, at any\nrate, flee from the actual evil, although, other evil might receive him\nafter all his struggles; yet we could forgive those who yielded at once\nto their fate, and who sat down quietly to wait for their death, without\nthe unavailing labour of a struggle to avoid it.\n\nBut when the declaration has been made to us by God himself, that this\ndismal swamp in which we are prisoners is but an infinitely small\nportion of his universe, that there do exist all those goodly forms\nwhich we fancied; and more, when God declares too that we were in the\nfirst instance designed to enjoy them; that our error brought us into\nthe thicket, having been once out of it; that we may escape from it\nagain; nay, much more still, when He shows us the true path to escape,\nand tells us, that the obstacles in our way have been cleared, and that\nhe will give us strength to accomplish, the task of escaping, and will\nguide us that we do not miss the track; then what shall we say to those\nwho insist upon, remaining where they are, but that they are either\ninfatuated, or indolent and cowardly even to insanity; that they are\nrefusing certain salvation, and are, by their own act, giving themselves\nover to inevitable death.\n\nThis, then, is the truth taught us by the doctrine of the Fall; not so\nmuch that it is our certain destruction to remain where we are, for that\nour own sense and reason declare to us, if we will but listen to them;\nbut that our present position is not that for which God designed us, and\nthat to rest satisfied with it is not a yielding to an unavoidable\nnecessity, but the indolently or madly shrinking from the effort which\nwould give us certain deliverance.\n\nNow it is a part of our present evil condition from which we must\nescape, that we know good and evil. We are in the world where evil\nexists within us, and about us; we cannot but know it. True it is, that\nit was our misfortune to become acquainted with it; this noisome\nwilderness of reeds, this reeking swamp; it would have been far happier\nfor us, no doubt, had we never become aware of their existence. But that\nwish is now too late. We are in the midst of this dismal place, and the\nquestion now is, how to escape from it. We may shut our eyes, and say we\nwill not see objects so unsightly; but what avails it, if the marsh\npoison finds its way by other senses, if we cannot but draw it in with\nour breath, and so we must die? And such is the case of those who now\nin this present world confound ignorance with innocence. This is a fatal\nmistaking of our present condition for our past; there was a time when\nto the human race ignorance was innocence; but now it is only folly and\nsin. For as I supposed that a man lost in one of those noxious swamps\nmight shut his eyes, and so keep himself in some measure in ignorance,\nyet the poison would be taken in with his breath, and so he would die:\neven thus, whilst we would fain shut the eyes of our understanding, and\nwould so hope to be in safety, our passions are all the time alive and\nactive, and they catch the poison of the atmosphere around us, and we\nare not innocent, but foolishly wicked.\n\nWe must needs consider this carefully; for, to say nothing of wider\nquestions of national importance, who that sees before him, as we must\nsee it, the gradual change from childhood to boyhood, who that sees\nadded knowledge often accompanied with added sin, can help wishing that\nthe earlier ignorance of evil might still be continued; and fancying\nthat knowledge is at best but a doubtful blessing?\n\nBut our path is not backwards, but onwards. Israel in the desert was\nhungry and thirsty, while in Egypt he had eaten bread to the full;\nIsrael in the desert saw a wide waste of sand, or sandy rock, around\nhim, while in Egypt he had dwelt in those green pastures and watered\ngardens to which the Nile had given freshness and life. But that\nwilderness is his appointed way to Canaan; its dreariness must be\nexchanged for the hills and valleys of Canaan, and must not drive him\nback again to the low plain of Egypt. There is a moral wilderness which\nlies in the early part of our Christian course; but we must not hope to\nescape from it but by penetrating through it to its furthest side.\n\nUndoubtedly this place, and other similar places, which receive us when\nwe have quitted the state of childhood, and before our characters are\nformed in manhood, do partake somewhat of the character of the\nwilderness; and it is not unnatural that many should shrink back from\nthem in fear. We see but too often the early beauty of the character\nsadly marred, its simplicity gone, its confidence chilled, its\ntenderness hardened; where there was gentleness, we see roughness and\ncoarseness; where there was obedience, we find murmuring, and self-will,\nand pride; where there was a true and blameless conversation, we find\nnow something of falsehood, something of profaneness, something of\nimpurity. I can well conceive what it must be to a parent to see his\nchild return from school, for the first time, with the marks of this\ngrievous change upon him: I can well conceive how bitterly he must\nregret having ever sent him to a place of so much, danger; how fondly he\nmust look back to the days of his early innocence. And if a parent feels\nthus, what must be our feelings, seeing that this evil has been wrought\nhere? Are we not as those who, when pretending to give a wholesome\ndraught, have mixed the cup with poison? How can we go on upholding a\nsystem, the effects of which appear to be so merely mischievous?\n\nBelieve me, that such questions must and ought to present themselves to\nthe mind of every thinking man who is concerned in the management of a\nschool: and I do think that we could not answer them satisfactorily,\nthat our work would absolutely be unendurable, if we did not bear in\nmind that our eyes should look forward, and not backward; if we did not\nremember that the victory of fallen man is to be sought for, not in\ninnocence, but in tried virtue. Comparing only the state of a boy after\nhis first half-year, or year, at school, with his earlier state as a\nchild, and our reflections on the evil of our system would be bitter\nindeed; but when we compare a boy's state after his first half-year, or\nyear, at school, with what it is afterwards; when we see the clouds\nagain clearing off; when we find coarseness succeeded again by delicacy;\nhardness and selfishness again broken up, and giving place to affection\nand benevolence; murmuring and self-will exchanged for humility and\nself-denial; and the profane, or impure, or false tongue, uttering again\nonly the words of truth and purity; and when we see that all these good\nthings are now, by God's grace, rooted in the character; that they have\nbeen tried, and grown up amidst the trial; that the knowledge of evil\nhas made them hate it the more, and be the more aware of it; then we can\nlook upon our calling with patience, and even with thankfulness; we see\nthat the wilderness has been gone through triumphantly, and that its\ndangers have hardened and strengthened the traveller for all his\nremaining pilgrimage.\n\nFor the truth is, that to the knowledge of good and evil we are born;\nand it must come upon us sooner or later. In the common course of\nthings, it comes about that age with which we are here most concerned. I\ndo not mean that there are not faults in early childhood--we know that\nthere are;--but we know also that with the strength and rapid growth of\nboyhood there is a far greater development of these faults, and\nparticularly far less of that submissiveness which belonged naturally to\nthe helplessness of mere childhood. I suppose that, by an extreme care,\nthe period of childhood might be prolonged considerably; but still it\nmust end; and the knowledge of good and evil, in its full force, must\ncome. I believe that this must be; I believe that no care can prevent\nit, and that an extreme attempt at carefulness, whilst it could not\nkeep off the disorder, would weaken the strength, of the constitution to\nbear it. But yet you should never forget, and I should never forget,\nthat although the evils of schools in some respects must be, yet, in\nproportion as they exceed what must be, they do become at once\nmischievous and guilty. And such, or even worse, is the mischief when,\nwith the evil which must be, there is not the good which ought to be;\nfor, remember, our condition is to know good and evil. If we know only\nevil, it is the condition of hell; and therefore, if schools present an\nunmixed experience, if there is temptation in abundance, but no support\nagainst temptation, and no examples of overcoming it; if some are losing\ntheir child's innocence, but none, or very few, are gaining a man's\nvirtue; are we in a wholesome state then? or can we shelter ourselves\nunder the excuse that our evil is unavoidable, that we do but afford, in\na mild form, the experience which must be learned sooner or later? It is\nhere that we must be acquitted or condemned. I can bear to see the\noverclouding of childish simplicity, if there is a reasonable hope that\nthe character so clouded for a time will brighten again into Christian\nholiness. But if we do not see this, if innocence is exchanged only for\nvice, then we have not done our part, then the evil is not unavoidable,\nbut our sin: and we may be assured, that for the souls so lost, there\nwill be an account demanded hereafter both of us and you.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1 CORINTHIANS xiii. 11.\n\n_When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I\nthought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away\nchildish things_.\n\n\nTaking the Apostle's words literally, it might appear that no words in\nthe whole range of Scripture were less applicable to the circumstances\nof this particular congregation: for they speak of childhood and of\nmanhood; and as all of us have passed the one, so a very large\nproportion of us have not yet arrived at the other. But when we consider\nthe passage a little more carefully, we shall see that this would be a\nvery narrow and absurd objection. Neither the Apostle, nor any one else,\nhas ever stepped directly from childhood into manhood; it was his\npurpose here only to notice the two extreme points of the change which\nhad taken place in him, passing over its intermediate stages; but he,\nlike all other men, must have gone through those stages. There must have\nbeen a time in his life, as in all ours, when his words, his thoughts,\nand his understanding were neither all childish, nor all manly: there\nmust have been a period, extending over some years, in which they were\ngradually becoming the one less and less, and the other more and more.\nAnd as it suited the purposes of his comparison to look at the change in\nhimself only when it was completed, so it will suit our object here to\nregard it while in progress, to consider what it is, to ask the two\ngreat questions, how far it can be hastened, and how far it ought to\nbe hastened.\n\n\"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I\nthought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish\nthings.\" It will be seen at once, that when the Apostle speaks of\nthought and understanding, ([Greek: erronoun elogizomeaen],) he does not\nmean the mere intellect but all the notions, feelings, and desires of\nour minds, which partake of an intellectual and of a moral character\ntogether. He is comparing what we should call the whole nature and\ncharacter of childhood with those of manhood. Let us see, for a moment,\nin what they most strikingly differ.\n\nOur Lord's well-known words suggest a difference in the first place,\nwhich is in favour of childhood. When he says, \"Except ye be converted,\nand become as little children, ye can in no case enter into the kingdom\nof heaven,\" he must certainly ascribe some one quality to childhood, in\nwhich manhood is generally deficient. And the quality which he means is\nclearly humility; or to speak perhaps more correctly, teachableness. It\nis impossible that a child can have that confidence in himself, which\ndisposes him to be his own guide. He must of necessity lean on others,\nhe must follow others, and therefore he must believe others. There is in\nhis mind, properly speaking, nothing which can be called prejudice; he\nwill not as yet refuse to listen, as thinking that he knows better than\nhis adviser. One feeling, therefore, essential to the perfection of\nevery created and reasonable being, childhood has by the very law of its\nnature; a child cannot help believing that there are some who are\ngreater, wiser, better than himself, and he is disposed to follow\ntheir guidance.\n\nThis sense of comparative weakness is founded upon truth, for a child\nis of course unfit to guide himself. Without noticing mere bodily\nhelplessness, a child knows scarcely what is good and what is evil; his\ndesires for the highest good are not yet in existence; his moral sense\naltogether is exceedingly weak, and would yield readily to the first\ntemptation. And, because those higher feelings, which are the great\ncheck to selfishness, have not yet arisen within him, the selfish\ninstinct, connected apparently with all animal life, is exceedingly\npredominant in him. If a child then on the one hand be teachable, yet he\nis at the same time morally weak and ignorant, and therefore\nextremely selfish.\n\nIt is also a part of the nature of childhood to be the slave of present\nimpulses. A child is not apt to look backwards or forwards, to reflect\nor to calculate. In this also he differs entirely from the great quality\nwhich befits man as an eternal being, the being able to look before\nand after.\n\nNot to embarrass ourselves with too many points, we may be content with\nthese four characteristics of childhood, teachableness, ignorance,\nselfishness, and living only for the present. In the last three of\nthese, the perfect man should put away childish things; in the first\npoint, or teachableness, while he retained it in principle, he should\nmodify it in its application. For while modesty, humility, and a\nreadiness to learn, are becoming to men no less than to children; yet it\nshould be not a simple readiness to follow others, but only to follow\nthe wise and good; not a sense of utter helplessness which catches at\nthe first stay, whether sound or brittle; but such a consciousness of\nweakness and imperfection, as makes us long to be strengthened by Him\nwho is almighty, to be purified by Him who is all pure.\n\nI said, and it is an obvious truth, that the change from childhood to\nmanhood is gradual; there is a period in our lives, of several years,\nin which we are, or should be, slowly exchanging the qualities of one\nstate for those of the other. During this intermediate state, then, we\nshould expect to find persons become less teachable, less ignorant, less\nselfish, less thoughtless. \"Less teachable,\" I would wish to mean, in\nthe sense of being \"less indiscriminately teachable;\" but as the evil\nand the good are, in human things, ever mixed up together, we may be\nobliged to mean \"less teachable\" simply. And, to say the very truth, if\nI saw in a young man the changes from childhood in the three other\npoints, if I found him becoming wiser, and less selfish, and more\nthoughtful, I should not be very much disturbed if I found him for a\ntime less teachable also. For whilst he was really becoming wiser and\nbetter, I should not much wonder if the sense of improvement rather than\nof imperfection possessed him too strongly; if his confidence in himself\nwas a little too over-weening. Let him go on a little farther in life,\nand if he really does go on improving in wisdom and goodness, this\nover-confidence will find its proper level. He will perceive not only\nhow much he is doing, or can do, but how much there is which he does not\ndo, and cannot. To a thoughtful mind added years can scarcely fail to\nteach, humility. And in this the highest wisdom of manhood may be\nresembling more and more the state of what would be perfect childhood,\nthat is, not simply teachableness, but tractableness with respect to\nwhat was good and true, and to that only.\n\nBut the danger of the intermediate state between childhood and manhood\nis too often this, that whilst in the one point of teachableness, the\nchange runs on too fast, in the other three, of wisdom, of\nunselfishness, and of thoughtfulness, it proceeds much too slowly: that\nthe faults of childhood thus remain in the character, whilst\nthat quality by means of which these faults are meant to be\ncorrected,--namely, teachableness,--is at the same time diminishing.\nNow, teachableness as an instinct, if I may call it so, diminishes\nnaturally with the consciousness of growing strength. By strength, I\nmean strength of body, no less than strength of mind, so closely are our\nbody and mind connected with, each other. The helplessness of childhood,\nwhich presses upon it every moment, the sense of inability to avoid or\nresist danger, which makes the child run continually to his nurse or to\nhis mother for protection, cannot but diminish, by the mere growth of\nthe bodily powers. The boy feels himself to be less helpless than the\nchild, and in that very proportion he is apt to become less teachable.\nAs this feeling of decreased helplessness changes into a sense of\npositive vigour and power, and as this vigour and power confer an\nimportance on their possessor, which is the case especially at schools,\nso self-confidence must in one point at least, arise in the place of\nconscious weakness; and as this point is felt to be more important, so\nwill the self-confidence be likely to extend itself more and more over\nthe whole character.\n\nAnd yet, I am bound to say, that, in general, the teachableness of youth\nis, after all, much greater than we might at first sight fancy. Along\nwith much self-confidence in many things, it is rare, I think, to find\nin a young man a deliberate pride that rejects advice and instruction,\non the strength of having no need for them. And therefore, the faults of\nboyhood and youth are more owing, to my mind, to the want of change in\nthe other points of the childish character, than to the too great change\nin this. The besetting faults of youth appear to me to arise mainly from\nits retaining too often the ignorance, selfishness, and thoughtlessness\nof a child, and having arrived at the same time at a degree of bodily\nvigour and power, equal, or only a very little inferior, to those\nof manhood.\n\nAnd in this state of things, the questions become of exceeding interest,\nwhether the change from childhood to manhood can be hastened. That it\nought to be hastened, appears to me to be clear; hastened, I mean, from\nwhat it is actually, because in this respect, we do not grow in general\nfast enough; and the danger of over-growth is, therefore, small.\nBesides, where change of one sort is going on very rapidly; where the\nlimbs are growing and the bones knitting more firmly, where the strength\nof bodily endurance, as well as of bodily activity, is daily becoming\ngreater; it is self-evident that, if the inward changes which ought to\naccompany these outward ones are making no progress, there cannot but be\nderangement and deformity in the system. And, therefore, when I look\naround, I cannot but wish generally that the change from childhood to\nmanhood in the three great points of wisdom, of unselfishness, and of\nthoughtfulness, might be hastened from its actual rate of progress in\nmost instances.\n\nBut then comes the other great question, \"Can it be hastened, and if it\ncan, how is it to be done?\" \"Can it be hastened\" means, of course, can\nit be hastened healthfully and beneficially, consistently with the due\ndevelopment of our nature in its after stages, from life temporal to\nlife eternal? For as the child should grow up into the man, so also\nthere is a term of years given in which, according to God's will, the\nnatural man should grow up into the spiritual man; and we must not so\npress the first change as to make it interfere with the wholesome\nworking of the second. The question then is, really, can the change\nfrom childhood to manhood be hastened in the case of boys and young men\nin general from its actual rate of progress in ordinary cases, without\ninjury to the future excellence and full development of the man? that\nis, without exhausting prematurely the faculties either of body or mind.\n\nAnd this is a very grave question, one of the deepest interest for us\nand for you. For us, as, according to the answer to be given to it,\nshould depend our whole conduct and feelings towards you in the matter\nof your education; for you, inasmuch as it is quite clear, that if the\nchange from childhood to manhood can be hastened safely, it ought to be\nhastened; and that it is a sin in every one not to try to hasten it:\nbecause, to retain the imperfections of childhood when you can get rid\nof them, is in itself to forfeit the innocence of childhood; to exchange\nthe condition of the innocent infant whom Christ blessed, for that of\nthe unprofitable servant whom Christ condemned. For with the growth of\nour bodies evil will grow in us unavoidably; and then, if we are not\npositively good, we are, of necessity, positively sinners.\n\nWe will consider, then, what can be done to hasten this change in us\nhealthfully; whether we can grow in wisdom, in love, and in\nthoughtfulness, faster in youth, than we now commonly do grow: and\nwhether any possible danger can be connected with such increased\nexertion. This shall be our subject for consideration next Sunday.\nMeantime, let it be understood, that however extravagant it might be to\nhope for any general change in any moral point, as the direct result of\nsetting truth before the mind; yet, that it never can be extravagant to\nhope for a practical result in some one or two particular cases; and\nthat, if one or two even be impressed practically with what they hear,\nthe good achieved, or, rather, the good granted us by God, is really\nbeyond our calculation. It is so strictly; for who can worthily\ncalculate the value of a single human soul? but it is so in this sense\nalso, that the amount of general good which may be done in the end by\ndoing good first in particular cases is really more than we can\nestimate. It was thus that Christ's original eleven apostles became, in\nthe end, the instruments of the salvation of millions: and it is on this\nconsideration that we never need despair of the most extensive\nimprovements in society, if we are content to wait God's appointed time\nand order, and look for the salvation of the many as the gradual fruit\nof the salvation of a few.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1 CORINTHIANS xiii. 11.\n\n_When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I\nthought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away\nchildish things_.\n\n\nAfter having noticed last Sunday what were those particular points in\nchildhood, which in manhood should be put away, and having observed that\nthis change cannot take place all at once, but gradually, during a\nperiod of several years, I proposed to consider, as on this day, whether\nit were possible to hasten this change, that is, whether it could be\nhastened without injury to the future development of the character; for\nundoubtedly, there is such, a thing in minds, as well as in bodies, as\nprecocious growth; and although it is not so frequent as precocious\ngrowth in the body, nor by any means so generally regarded as an evil,\nyet it is really a thing to be deprecated; and we ought not to adopt\nsuch measures as might be likely to occasion it.\n\nNow I believe the only reason which could make it supposed to be\npossible that there could be danger in hastening this change, is drawn\nfrom the observation of what takes place sometimes with regard to\nintellectual advancement. It is seen that some young men of great\nambition, or remarkable love of knowledge, do really injure their\nhealth, and exhaust their minds, by an excess of early study. I always\ngrieve over such cases exceedingly; not only for the individual's sake\nwho is the sufferer, but also for the mischievous effect of his example.\nIt affords a pretence to others to justify their own want of exertion;\nand those to whom it is in reality the least dangerous, are always the\nvery persons who seem to dread it the most. But we should clearly\nunderstand, that this excess of intellectual exertion at an early age,\nis by no means the same thing with hastening the change from\nchildishness to manliness. We are all enough aware, in common life, that\na very clever and forward boy may be, in his conduct, exceeding\nchildish; that those whose talents and book-knowledge are by no means\nremarkable, may be, in their conduct, exceedingly manly. Examples of\nboth these truths instantly present themselves to my memory, and perhaps\nmay do so to some of yours. I may say farther, that some whose change\nfrom childhood to manhood had been, in St. Paul's sense of the terms,\nthe most remarkably advanced, were so far from being distinguished for\ntheir cleverness or proficiency in their school-work, that it would\nalmost seem as if their only remaining childishness had been displayed\nthere. What I mean, therefore, by the change from childhood to manhood,\nis altogether distinct from a premature advance in book-knowledge, and\ninvolves in it nothing of that over-study which is dreaded as so\ninjurious.\n\nYet it is true that I described the change from childhood to manhood, as\na change from ignorance to wisdom. I did so, certainly; but yet, rare as\nknowledge is, wisdom is rarer; and knowledge, unhappily, can exist\nwithout wisdom, as wisdom can exist with a very inferior degree of\nknowledge. We shall see this, if we consider what we mean by knowledge;\nand, without going into a more general definition of it, let us see what\nwe mean by it here. We mean by it, either a knowledge of points of\nscholarship, of grammar, and matters connected with grammar; or a\nknowledge of history and geography; or a knowledge of mathematics: or,\nit may be, of natural history; or, if we use the term, \"knowledge of the\nworld,\" then we mean, I think, a knowledge of points of manner and\nfashion; such a knowledge as may save us from exposing ourselves in\ntrifling things, by awkwardness or inexperience. Now the knowledge of\nnone of these things brings us of necessity any nearer to real\nthoughtfulness, such as alone gives wisdom, than the knowledge of a\nwell-contrived game. Some of you, probably, well know that there are\ngames from which chance is wholly excluded, and skill in which is only\nthe result of much thought and calculation. There is no doubt that the\ngame of chess may properly be called an intellectual study; but why does\nit not, and cannot, make any man wise? Because, in the first place, the\ncalculations do but respect the movements of little pieces of wood or\nivory, and not those of our own minds and hearts; and, again, they are\ncalculations which have nothing to do whatever with our being better\nmen, or worse, with our pleasing God or displeasing him. And what is\ntrue of this game, is true no less of the highest calculations of\nAstronomy, of the profoundest researches into language; nay, what may\nseem stranger still, it is often true no less of the deepest study even\nof the actions and principles of man's nature; and, strangest of all, it\nmay be, and is often true, also, of the study of the very Scripture\nitself; and that, not only of the incidental points of Scripture, its\nantiquities, chronology, and history, but of its very most divine\ntruths, of man's justification and of God's nature. Here, indeed, we are\nconsidering about things where wisdom, so to speak, sits enshrined. We\nare very near her, we see the place where she abides; but her very self\nwe obtain not. And why?--but because, in the most solemn study, no less\nthan in the lightest, our own moral state may be set apart from our\nconsideration; we may be unconscious all the while of our great want;\nand forgetting our great business, to be reconciled to God, and to do\nhis will: for wisdom, to speak properly, is to us nothing else than the\ntrue answer to the Philippian jailor's question, \"What must I do to\nbe saved?\"\n\nNow then, as knowledge of all kinds may be gained without being\nreceived, or meant at all to be applied, as the answer to this question,\nso it may be quite distinct from wisdom. And when I use the term\nthoughtfulness, as opposed to a child's carelessness, I mean it to\nexpress an anxiety for the obtaining of this wisdom. And farther, I do\nnot see how this wisdom, or this thoughtfulness, can be premature in any\none; or how it can exhaust before their time any faculties, whether of\nbody or mind. This requires no sitting up late at night, no giving up of\nhealthful exercise; it brings no headaches, no feverishness, no strong\nexcitement at first, to be followed by exhaustion afterwards. Hear how\nit is described by one who spoke of it from experience. \"The wisdom that\nis from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be\nentreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without\nhypocrisy.\" There is surely nothing of premature exhaustion\nconnected-with any one of these things.\n\nOr, if we turn to the third point of change from childhood to a\nChristian manhood, the change from selfishness to unselfishness, neither\ncan we find any possible danger in hastening this. This cannot hurt our\nhealth or strain our faculties; it can but make life at every age more\npeaceful and more happy. Nor indeed do I suppose that any one could\nfancy that such a change was otherwise than wholesome at the earliest\npossible period.\n\nThere may remain, however, a vague notion, that generally, if what we\nmean by an early change from childishness to manliness be that we should\nbecome religious, then, although it may not exhaust the powers, or\ninjure the health, yet it would destroy the natural liveliness and\ngaiety of youth, and by bringing on a premature seriousness of manner\nand language, would be unbecoming and ridiculous. Now, in the first\nplace, there is a great deal of confusion and a great deal of folly in\nthe common notions of the gaiety of youth. If gaiety mean real happiness\nof mind, I do not believe that there is more of it in youth than in\nmanhood; if for this reason only, that the temper in youth being\ncommonly not yet brought into good order, irritation and passion are\nfelt, probably, oftener than in after life, and these are sad drawbacks,\nas we all know, to a real cheerfulness of mind. And of the outward\ngaiety of youth, there is a part also which is like the gaiety of a\ndrunken man; which is riotous, insolent, and annoying to others; which,\nin short, is a folly and a sin. There remains that which strictly\nbelongs to youth, partly physically--the lighter step and the livelier\nmovement of the growing and vigorous body; partly from circumstances,\nbecause a young person's parents or friends stand between him and many\nof the cares of life, and protect him from feeling them altogether;\npartly from the abundance of hope which belongs to the beginning of\nevery thing, and which continually hinders the mind from dwelling on\npast pain. And I know not which of these causes of gaiety would be taken\naway or lessened by the earlier change from childhood to manhood. True\nit is, that the question, \"What must I do to be saved?\" is a grave one,\nand must be considered seriously; but I do not suppose that any one\nproposes that a young person should never be serious at all. True it is,\nagain, that if we are living in folly and sin, this question may be a\npainful one; we might be gayer for a time without it. But, then, the\nmatter is, what is to become of us if we do not think of being\nsaved?--shall we be saved without thinking of it? And what is it to be\nnot saved but lost? I cannot pretend to say that the thought of God\nwould not very much disturb the peace and gaiety of an ungodly and\nsinful mind; that it would not interfere with the mirth of the bully, or\nthe drunkard, or the reveller, or the glutton, or the idler, or the\nfool. It would, no doubt; just as the hand that was seen to write on the\nwall threw a gloom over the guests at Belshazzar's festival. I never\nmeant or mean to say, that the thought of God, or that God himself, can\nbe other than a plague to those who do not love Him. The thought of Him\nis their plague here; the sight of Him will be their judgment for ever.\nBut I suppose the point is, whether the thought of Him would cloud the\ngaiety of those who were striving to please Him. It would cloud it as\nmuch, and be just as unwelcome and no more, as will be the very actual\npresence of our Lord to the righteous, when they shall see Him as He is.\nCan that which we know to be able to make old age, and sickness, and\npoverty, many times full of comfort,--can that make youth and health\ngloomy? When to natural cheerfulness and sanguineness, are added a\nconsciousness of God's ever present care, and a knowledge of his rich\npromises, are we likely to be the more sad or the more unhappy?\n\nWhat reason, then, is there for any one's not anticipating the common\nprogress of Christian manliness, and hastening; to exchange, as I said\nbefore, ignorance for wisdom, selfishness for unselfishness,\ncarelessness for thoughtfulness? I see no reason why we should not; but\nis there no reason why we should? You are young, and for the most part\nstrong and healthy; I grant that, humanly speaking, the chances of early\ndeath to any particular person among you are small. But still,\nconsidering what life is, even to the youngest and strongest, it does\nseem a fearful risk to be living unredeemed; to be living in that state,\nthat if we should happen to die, (it may be very unlikely, but still it\nis clearly possible,)--that if we should happen to die, we should be\nmost certainly lost for ever. Risks, however, we do not mind; the\nchances, we think, are in our favour, and we will run the hazard. It may\nbe so; but he who delays to turn to God when the thought has been once\nput before him, is incurring something more than a risk. He may not die\nthese fifty or sixty years; we cannot tell how that may be; but he is\ncertainly at this very present time hardening his heart, and doing\ndespite unto the Spirit of Grace. By the very wickedness of putting off\nturning to God till a future time, he lessens his power of turning to\nHim ever. This is certain; no one can reject God's call without becoming\nless likely to hear it when it is made to him again. And thus the\nlingering wilfully in the evil things of childhood, when we might be at\nwork in putting them off, and when God calls us to do so, is an infinite\nrisk, and a certain evil;--an infinite risk, for it is living in such a\nstate that death at any moment would be certain condemnation;--and a\ncertain evil, because, whether we live or not, we are actually raising\nup barriers between ourselves and our salvation; we not only do not draw\nnigh to God, but we are going farther from Him, and lessening our power\nof drawing nigh to Him hereafter.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCOLOSSIANS i. 9.\n\n_We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled\nwith the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual\nunderstanding_.\n\n\nThis is the first of three verses, all of them forming a part of the\nEpistle which was read this morning, and containing St. Paul's prayer\nfor the Colossians in all the several points of Christian excellence.\nAnd the first thing which he desires for them, as we have heard, is,\nthat they should be filled with the knowledge of God's will in all\nwisdom and spiritual understanding; or, as he expresses the same thing\nto the Ephesians, that they should be not unwise, but understanding what\nthe will of the Lord is. He prays for the Colossians that they should\nnot be spiritually foolish, but that they should be spiritually wise.\n\nThe state of spiritual folly is, I suppose, one of the most universal\nevils in the world. For the number of those who are naturally foolish is\nexceedingly great; of those, I mean, who understand no worldly thing\nwell; of those who are careless about everything, carried about by every\nbreath of opinion, without knowledge, and without principle. But the\nterm spiritual folly includes, unhappily, a great many more than these;\nit takes in not those only who are in the common sense of the term\nfoolish, but a great many who are in the common sense of the term\nclever, and many who are even in the common sense of the terms, prudent,\nsensible, thoughtful, and wise. It is but too evident that some of the\nablest men who have ever lived upon earth, have been in no less a degree\nspiritually fools. And thus, it is not without much truth that Christian\nwriters have dwelt upon the insufficiency of worldly wisdom, and have\nwarned their readers to beware, lest, while professing themselves to be\nwise, they should be accounted as fools in the sight of God.\n\nBut the opposite to this notion, that those who are, as it were, fools\nin worldly matters are wise before God; although this also is true in a\ncertain sense, and under certain peculiar circumstances, yet taken\ngenerally, it is the very reverse of truth; and the careless and\nincautious language which has been often used on this subject, has been\nextremely mischievous. On the contrary, he who is foolish in worldly\nmatters is likely also to be, and most commonly is, no less foolish in\nthe things of God. And the opposite belief has arisen mainly from that\nstrange confusion between ignorance and innocence, with which many\nignorant persons seem to solace themselves. Whereas, if you take away a\nman's knowledge, you do not bring him to the state of an infant, but to\nthat of a brute; and of one of the most mischievous and malignant of the\nbrute creation. For you do not lessen or weaken the man's body by\nlowering his mind; he still retains his strength and his passions, the\npassions leading to self-indulgence, the strength which enables him to\nfeed them by continued gratification. He will not think it is true to\nany good purpose; it is very possible to destroy in him the power of\nreflection, whether as exercised upon outward things, or upon himself\nand his own nature, or upon God. But you cannot destroy the power of\nadapting means to ends, nor that of concealing his purposes by fraud or\nfalsehood; you take only his wisdom, and leave that cunning which marks\nso notoriously both the savage and the madman. He, then, who is a fool\nas far as regards earthly things, is much more a fool with regard to\nheavenly things; he who cannot raise himself even to the lower height,\nhow is he to attain to the higher? he who is without reason and\nconscience, how shall he be endowed with the spirit of God?\n\nIt is my deep conviction and long experience of this truth, which makes\nme so grieve over a want of interest in your own improvement in human\nlearning, whenever I observe it, over the prevalence of a thoughtless\nand childish spirit amongst you. I grant that as to the first point\nthere are sometimes exceptions to be met with; that is to say, I have\nknown persons certainly whose interest in their work here was not great,\nand their proficiency consequently was small; but who, I do not doubt,\nwere wise unto God. But then these persons, whilst they were indifferent\nperhaps about their common school-work, were anything but indifferent as\nto the knowledge of the Bible: there was no carelessness there; but they\nread, and read frequently, books of practical improvement, or relating\notherwise to religious matters, such as many, I believe, would find even\nless inviting than the books of their common business. So that although\nthere was a neglect undoubtedly of many parts of the school-work, yet\nthere was no spirit of thoughtlessness or childishness in them, nor of\ngeneral idleness; and therefore, although I know that their minds did\nsuffer and have suffered from their unwise neglect of a part of their\nduty, yet there was so much attention bestowed on other parts, and so\nmanifest and earnest a care for the things of God, that it was\nimpossible not to entertain for them the greatest respect and regard.\nThese, however, are such rare cases, that it cannot be necessary to do\nmore than thus notice them. But the idleness and want of interest which\nI grieve for, is one which extends itself but too impartially to\nknowledge of every kind: to divine knowledge, as might be expected, even\nmore than to human. Those whom we commonly find careless about their\ngeneral lessons, are quite as ignorant and as careless about their\nBibles; those who have no interest in general literature, in poetry, or\nin history, or in philosophy, have certainly no greater interest, I do\nnot say in works of theology, but in works of practical devotion, in the\nlives of holy men, in meditations, or in prayers. Alas, the interest of\ntheir minds is bestowed on things far lower than the very lowest of all\nwhich I have named; and therefore, to see them desiring something only a\nlittle higher than their present pursuits, could not but be encouraging;\nit would, at least, show that the mind was rising upwards. It may,\nindeed, stop at a point short of the highest, it may learn to love\nearthly excellence, and rest there contented, and seek for nothing more\nperfect; but that, at any rate, is a future and merely contingent evil.\nIt is better to love earthly excellence than earthly folly; it is far\nbetter in itself, and it is, by many degrees, nearer to the kingdom\nof God.\n\nThere is another case, however, which I cannot but think is more\nfrequent now than formerly; and if it is so, it may be worth while to\ndirect our attention to it. Common idleness and absolute ignorance are\nnot what I wish to speak of now, but a character advanced above these; a\ncharacter which does not neglect its school-lessons, but really attains\nto considerable proficiency in them; a character at once regular and\namiable, abstaining from evil, and for evil in its low and grosser\nforms, having a real abhorrence. What, then, you will say, is wanting\nhere? I will tell you what seems to be wanting--a spirit of manly, and\nmuch more of Christian, thoughtfulness. There is quickness and\ncleverness; much pleasure, perhaps, in distinction, but little in\nimprovement; there is no desire of knowledge for its own sake, whether\nhuman or divine. There is, therefore, but little power of combining and\ndigesting what is read; and, consequently, what is read passes away, and\ntakes no root in the mind. This same character shows itself in matters\nof conduct; it will adopt, without scruple, the most foolish,\ncommonplace notions of boys, about what is right and wrong; it will not,\nand cannot, from the lightness of its mind, concern itself seriously\nabout what is evil in the conduct of others, because it takes no regular\ncare of its own, with reference to pleasing God; it will not do anything\nlow or wicked, but it will sometimes laugh at those who do; and it will\nby no means take pains to encourage, nay, it will sometimes thwart and\noppose any thing that breathes a higher spirit, and asserts a more manly\nand Christian standard of duty.\n\nI have thought that this character, with its features more or less\nstrongly marked, has shown itself sometimes amongst us, marring the good\nand amiable qualities of those in whom we can least bear to see such a\ndefect, because there is in them really so much to interest in their\nfavour. Now the number of persons of extraordinary abilities who may be\nhere at any one time can depend on no calculable causes: nor, again, can\nwe give any reason more than what we call accident, if there were to be\namongst us at any one time a number of persons whose whole tendency was\ndecidedly to evil. But if, in these respects, the usual average has\ncontinued, if there is no lack of ability, and nothing like a prevalence\nof vice, then we begin anxiously to inquire into the causes, which,\nwhile other things remain the same, have led to a different result. And\none cause I do find, which, is certainly capable of producing such a\nresult: a cause undoubtedly in existence now, and as certainly not in\nexistence a few years back; nor can I trace any other besides this which\nappears likely to have produced the same effect. This cause consists in\nthe number and character and cheapness, and peculiar mode of\npublication, of the works of amusement of the present day. In all these\nrespects the change is great, and extremely recent. The works of\namusement published only a very few years since were comparatively few\nin number; they were less exciting, and therefore less attractive; they\nwere dearer, and therefore less accessible; and, not being published\nperiodically, they did not occupy the mind for so long a time, nor keep\nalive so constant an expectation; nor, by thus dwelling upon the mind,\nand distilling themselves into it as it were drop by drop, did they\npossess it so largely, colouring even, in many instances, its very\nlanguage, and affording frequent matter for conversation.\n\nThe evil of all these circumstances is actually enormous. The mass of\nhuman minds, and much more of the minds of young persons, have no great\nappetite for intellectual exercise; but they have some, which by careful\ntreatment may be strengthened and increased. But here to this weak and\ndelicate appetite is presented an abundance of the most stimulating and\nleast nourishing food possible. It snatches it greedily, and is not only\nsatisfied, but actually conceives a distaste for anything simpler and\nmore wholesome. That curiosity which is wisely given us to lead us on to\nknowledge, finds its full gratification in the details of an exciting\nand protracted story, and then lies down as it were gorged, and goes to\nsleep. Other faculties claim their turn, and have it. We know that in\nyouth the healthy body and lively spirits require exercise, and in this\nthey may and ought to be indulged: but the time and interest which\nremain over when the body has had its enjoyment, and the mind desires\nits share, this has been already wasted and exhausted upon things\nutterly unprofitable: so that the mind goes to its work hurriedly and\nlanguidly, and feels it to be no more than a burden. The mere lessons\nmay be learnt from a sense of duty; but that freshness of power which,\nin young persons of ability would fasten eagerly upon some one portion\nor other, of the wide field of knowledge, and there expatiate, drinking\nin health and strength to the mind, as surely as the natural exercise of\nthe body gives to it bodily vigour,--that is tired prematurely,\nperverted, and corrupted; and all the knowledge which else it might so\ncovet, it now seems a wearying effort to attain.\n\nGreat and grievous as is the evil, it is peculiarly hard to find the\nremedy for it. If the books to which I have been alluding were books of\ndownright wickedness, we might destroy them wherever we found them; we\nmight forbid their open circulation; we might conjure you to shun them\nas you would any other clear sin, whether of word or deed. But they are\nnot wicked books for the most part; they are of that class which cannot\nbe actually prohibited; nor can it be pretended that there is a sin in\nreading them. They are not the more wicked for being published so cheap,\nand at regular intervals; but yet these two circumstances make them so\npeculiarly injurious. All that can be done is to point out the evil;\nthat it is real and serious I am very sure, and its effects are most\ndeplorable on the minds of the fairest promise; but the remedy for it\nrests with yourselves, or rather with each of you individually, so far\nas he is himself concerned. That an unnatural and constant excitement of\nthe mind is most injurious, there is no doubt; that excitement involves\na consequent weakness, is a law of our nature than which none is surer;\nthat the weakness of mind thus produced is and must be adverse to quiet\nstudy and thought, to that reflection which alone is wisdom, is also\nclear in itself, and proved too largely by experience. And that without\nreflection there can be no spiritual understanding, is at once evident;\nwhile without spiritual understanding, that is, without a knowledge and\na study of God's will, there can be no spiritual life. And therefore\nchildishness and unthoughtfulness cannot be light evils; and if I have\nrightly traced the prevalence of these defects to its cause, although\nthat cause may seem to some to be trifling, yet surely it is well to\ncall your attention to it, and to remind you that in reading works of\namusement, as in every other lawful pleasure, there is and must be an\nabiding responsibility in the sight of God; that, like other lawful\npleasures, we must beware of excess in it; and not only so, but that if\nwe find it hurtful to us, either because we have used it too freely in\ntimes past, or because our nature is too weak to bear it, that then we\nare bound most solemnly to abstain from it; because, however lawful in\nitself, or to others who can practise it without injury, whatever is to\nus an hindrance in the way of our intellectual and moral and spiritual\nimprovement, that is in our case a positive sin.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCOLOSSIANS i. 9.\n\n_We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled\nwith the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual\nunderstanding_.\n\n\nThese words, on which I spoke last Sunday, appeared to contain so much,\nwhich concerns us all so deeply, and to suit the peculiar ease of many\nof us here so entirely, that I thought they might well furnish us with\nmatter for farther consideration to-day. And though I noticed one\nparticular cause, which seemed to have acted mischievously, in the last\nfew years, upon the growth and freshness of the mind in youth, yet it\nwould be absurd to suppose that before this cause came into existence\nall was well; or that if it could be removed, our progress even in\nworldly knowledge would henceforth be unimpeded. There are many other\ncauses no doubt which oppose our growth in worldly wisdom; and still\nmore which oppose our growth in the wisdom of God.\n\nOne of these causes meets us at the very beginning; it exists at this\nvery moment; it makes it difficult even to gain your attention for what\nis to be said. This cause is to be found in the want of sympathy between\npersons of very different ages, between what must be, therefore, in the\ncommon course of nature, different degrees of thoughtfulness. It is the\nwant of sympathy, properly speaking, which creates in these matters a\ndifficulty of understanding; for the attention and memory are alike apt\nto be careless where the mind is not interested; and how can we\nunderstand that to which we scarcely listened, and which we imperfectly\nremember? Nature herself seems to lead the old and the young two\ndifferent ways: and when the old call upon the young to be thoughtful,\nit seems as if they were but calling them to a state contrary to their\nnature; and the call is not regarded.\n\nIs it then that we have here an invincible obstacle, which renders all\nattempts to inspire thoughtfulness utterly vain? and if it be so, what\nuse can there be in dwelling upon it? None, certainly, if it were\nactually and in all cases invincible; but if it be every thing short of\ninvincible, there is much good in noticing it. There is much good surely\nin trying to impress the great truth, that nature must be overcome by a\nmightier power, or we perish. There is much good in meeting and allowing\nto its full extent what we are so apt in our folly to regard as an\nexcuse, and which really is the earnest of our condemnation. It is very\ntrue, and to be allowed to the fullest extent, that it is against the\nnature of youth in all ordinary cases to be thoughtful; that it is very\ndifficult for you even to give your attention to serious things when\nspoken of, more difficult still to remember them afterwards and always.\nIt is for the very reason because it is so difficult, because it is a\nwork so against nature, to raise the young and careless mind to the\nthought of God; because it is so certain that, in the common course of\nthings, you will not think of Him, but will follow the bent of your own\nseveral fancies or desires, that therefore He, who wills in his love to\nbring us to himself, knowing that without the knowledge of Him we must\nperish for ever, was pleased to give his only-begotten Son, that\nthrough Him we might overcome nature, and might turn to God and live.\n\nI wish that I could increase, if it were possible, the sense which, you\nhave of the difficulty of becoming thoughtful, so that you could but see\nthat out of this very difficulty, and indissolubly connected with it,\ncomes the grace of Christ's redemption. You have not strength of purpose\nenough to shake off folly and sin; surely you have not, or else, why\nshould Christ have died? It is so hard to come to God; undoubtedly, so\nhard that no man can come unto God except God will draw him. Nature\nherself leads us to be careless, our very strength and spirits of\nthemselves will not allow us to reflect. Most true; for that which is\nborn of the flesh, is flesh; and we inherit a nature derived from him in\nwhom we all die.\n\nI believe that it is not idle to dwell upon tins; for it is scarcely\npossible but that good and earnest resolutions should often enter the\nminds of many of you; or, if not resolutions, yet at least wishes,\nwishes chilled but too soon, I fear, by the thought or feeling, that\nhowever much to will may be present with you, yet how to perform it you\nfind not. Now, if this true sense of weakness might but lead any one to\nseek for strength where it may be found, then indeed it would be a\nfeeling no less blessed than true; for it would urge you to seek God's\nhelp and Christ's redemption, instead of desperately yielding to your\nweakness, and so remaining weak for ever.\n\nYou may look at the prospect before you in all its reality: you may see\nhow much must be given up, how much withstood, bow much, endured; how\nhard it is to alter old ways, not in itself only, but because the change\nattracts attention, and is received, it may be, with doubts as to its\nsincerity, with irony, and with sneers. There is all this before you: it\ncannot be denied; it must not be concealed. The way to life is not broad\nand easy; it is not that way which is most trodden. To pass from what we\nare to what we may be hereafter, from an earthly nature to an heavenly,\ncannot be an easy work, to be done at any time, with no effort, with no\npain. It is the greatest work which is done in the whole world, it is\nthe mightiest change; death and birth are, as it were, combined in it;\nbut the Lord of birth and of death is at hand, to enable us to effect\nit. Think that this is so; and the more you feel how hard a task is set\nbefore you, the more you will be able to understand the language of joy\nand thankfulness with which the Scripture speaks of a human soul's\nredemption.\n\nThis great work may be wrought for every soul here assembled; the want\nof sympathy in sacred and serious things may be changed to sympathy the\nmost intense; the carelessness of fools may be changed into spiritual\nwisdom. It may be wrought for all; but it is more happy to think that it\nwill be wrought for some;--for whom, no mortal eye or judgment can\ndiscern; but it will be wrought for some. If many should yield in\ndespair to their enemy, yet some will resist him: if Christ be to many\nno more than foolishness, if his name convey nothing more than a vague\nsense of something solemn, which passes over the mind for an instant,\nand then vanishes, yet to some undoubtedly, he will be found to be the\nwisdom of God, and the power of God. There are some here, we may be\nquite sure, who will be witnesses for ever to all the world of men and\nangels, that what truly was impossible to nature, is possible to nature\nrenewed and strengthened by grace.\n\nWithout such a change, it is vain, I fear, to look for any thing like\nwisdom or spiritual understanding; for how can such a seed be expected\nto grow in a soil so shallow as common thoughtlessness? and how can\nmerely human motives have force to overcome so strong a tendency of\nnature? nay, how can such motives be brought to act upon the mind? for\nit is absolutely impossible that the middle-aged and the young should be\nbrought into entire sympathy with each other, unless Christ's love be\ntheir common bond. Human wisdom in advanced life may be, and is to\npersons of strong faculties of mind, naturally pleasant: but how can it\nbe made so to persons of ordinary faculties in early youth? There are\nfaults which society condemns strongly, while the temptation to them in\nafter life is slight. Persons in middle age may resist these easily, and\nabhor them sincerely; but how can we make young persons do the same when\nthe temptation to commit them is strong, and the condemnation of them by\ntheir society is either very slight, or does not exist at all? And,\ntherefore, we find that, do what we will, the same faults' continue to\nbe common in schools, the same faults both of omission and commission;\nthere is the same inherent difficulty of bringing persons of different\nages and positions to think and feel alike, unless Christ has become\npossessed of the thoughts and feelings of both, and so they become one\nwith each other in him.\n\nBut it was our Lord's charge to Peter, \"Thou, when thou art converted,\nstrengthen thy brethren.\" As sure as it is that some who hear me are\nturned, or turning, or will turn, to God, so sure is it that these, be\nthey few or many, will do something towards the strengthening of their\nbrethren. Whatever good is to be done amongst us on a large scale, it\nmust be done only in this way, the many half despairing prayer may be,\n\"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;\" but if any one is moved by\nChrist's call, and feels within himself that he should like to follow\nChrist, and to be with him always, let him cherish that work of the Holy\nSpirit within him, which has given him if it be only so much of the will\nto be saved. It is a spark which may be quenched in a moment; in itself\nit can give no assurance; but if any one watches it carefully, and prays\nthat it may live and be kindled into a stronger spark, till at last it\nbreak out into a flame, then for him it is full of assurance; God has\nheard his prayer; and he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, an\nearnest of his eternal inheritance. Will he not then watch and pray the\nmore anxiously, lest the fruit which, is now partly formed should never\nripen? Will he not see and feel that there is some reality in the things\nof God, that strength, and peace, and victory, are not vainly promised?\nWill he not hold fast the things which he has now not heard only, but\nknown, lest by any means he should let them slip? May God strengthen\nsuch, whoever they may be, with all the might of his Spirit; and may he\nbe with them even to the end.\n\nBut for those,--who they are, again, we know not, nor how many; but\nhere, also, there will too surely be some,--for those who hear now, as\nthey have often heard before, words which, they scarcely heed, which,\nhave at times partially caught their attention, but have not produced in\nthem the slightest real effect, for them the words are coming to an end;\nthey will soon be released from the irksome bondage of hearing them; and\nanother opportunity of grace will have been offered to them in vain.\nTomorrow, and the day after, they will walk as they have walked before,\nthe wretched slaves of folly and passion; half despairing prayer may\nbe, \"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;\" but if any one is moved\nby Christ's call, and feels within himself that he should like to follow\nChrist, and to be with him always, let him cherish that work of the Holy\nSpirit within him, which has given him if it be only so much of the will\nto be saved. It is a spark which may be quenched in a moment; in itself\nit can give no assurance; but if any one watches it carefully, and prays\nthat it may live and be kindled into a stronger spark, till at last it\nbreak out into a flame, then for him it is full of assurance; God has\nheard his prayer; and he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, an\nearnest of his eternal inheritance. Will he not then watch and pray the\nmore anxiously, lest the fruit which is now partly formed should never\nripen? Will he not see and feel that there is some reality in the things\nof God, that strength, and peace, and victory, are not vainly promised?\nWill he not hold fast the things which he has now not heard only, but\nknown, lest by any means he should let them slip? May God strengthen\nsuch, whoever they may be, with all the might of his Spirit; and may he\nbe with them even to the end.\n\nBut for those,--who they are, again, we know not, nor how many; but\nhere, also, there will too surely be some,--for those who hear now, as\nthey have often heard before, words which they scarcely heed, which have\nat times partially caught their attention, but have not produced in them\nthe slightest real effect, for them the words are coming to an end; they\nwill soon be released from the irksome bondage of hearing them; and\nanother opportunity of grace will have been offered to them in vain.\nTomorrow, and the day after, they will walk as they have walked before,\nthe wretched slaves of folly and passion; leaving undone all Christ's\nwork, and greedily doing his enemy's. Yet even these Christ yet spares,\nhe still calls them, he has died for them. Still the word must be spoken\nto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. It may\nbe, that they will some day turn; and if not, Christ has perfected his\nmercy towards them; and Christ's servants have delivered their own souls\nin warning them. May there be but few of us on whom this horrible\nportion will fall; yet, is it not an awful thing to think of, that it\nwill, in all human probability, fall on some? and that whoever hardens\nhis heart, and resists the word spoken to him this day, he is one who\nhas done as much as in him lies to make himself among that number.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCOLOSSIANS iii. 3.\n\n_Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God_.\n\n\nWhen I have spoken, from time to time, of denying ourselves for the sake\nof relieving others, although self-denial and charity are, in their full\ngrowth, amongst the highest of Christian graces, yet I have felt much\nhope that, up to a certain degree, in their lowest and elementary forms\nat least, there might be many that would be disposed to practise them.\nFor these are virtues which do undoubtedly commend themselves to our\nminds as things clearly good: so much so that I am inclined to think\nthat the much-disputed moral sense, the nature of which is said to be so\nhard to ascertain, exists most clearly in the universal perception that\nit is good to deny ourselves and to benefit others. I do not say merely\nthat there is a perception that it is good to deny ourselves in order to\nbenefit others; but that there is in self-denial, simply, something\nwhich commands respect; an unconscious tribute, I suppose, to the truth,\nthat the self which, is thus denied is one which, if indulged, would\nrun to evil.\n\nBut a point of far greater difficulty, of absolutely the greatest\ndifficulty, is to impress upon our minds the excellence of\nanother quality, which is known by the name of spiritual or\nheavenly-mindedness. In fact, this,--and this almost singly,--is the\ntranscendent part of Christianity; that part of it which is not\naccording to, but above, nature; which, conscience, I think, itself, in\nthe natural man, does not acknowledge. When Christianity speaks of\npurity, of truth, of justice, of charity, of faith and love to God, it\nspeaks a language which, however belied by our practice, is at once\nallowed by our consciences: the things so recommended are, beyond all\ndoubt, good and lovely. But when it says, in St. Paul's words, \"Set your\naffections on things above, not on things on the earth: for ye are dead,\nand your life is hid with Christ in God,\" the language sounds so strange\nthat it is scarcely intelligible; and if we do get to understand it, yet\nit seems to give a wrench, as it were, to our whole being, to command a\nthing extravagant and impossible.\n\nI am persuaded that this would be so, more or less, everywhere; but in\nhow extreme a degree must it hold good amongst us! Even in poverty, in\nsickness, and old age, where this life would seem to be nothing but a\nburden, and the command to \"set the affections on things above\" might\nappear superfluous, still the known so prevails over the unknown, the\nfamiliar over the incomprehensible, that hope and affection find\ncontinually their objects in this world, there is still a clinging to\nlife, and an unwillingness to die. But in a state the very opposite to\nthis, in plenty, in health, in youth; with much of enjoyment actually in\nour hands, and more in prospect; with just so much mystery over our\ncoming life as to keep alive interest, yet with enough known and\nunderstood in its prospects to awaken sympathy; what deafest ear of the\ndeaf adder could ever be so closed against the voice of the charmer, as\nour minds, so engrossed with the enjoyments and the hopes of earth, are\nclosed against the voice which speaks of the things of heaven?\n\nAgain, I have said, when speaking of other subjects, that I looked upon\nthe older persons among you as a sort of link between me and the\nyounger, who communicated, in some instances, by their language and\nexample, something of an impression of the meaning of Christian\nteaching. But when we speak of a thing so high as spiritual-mindedness,\nit seems as if none of us can be a link between Christ's words and our\nbrethren's minds: as if we all stand alike at an infinite distance from\nthe high and unapproachable truth. The mountain of God becomes veiled,\nas it were, with the clouds which rested upon Sinai; we cannot approach\nnear it, but stand far off, for a moment, perhaps, in awe; but soon in\nneglect and indifference.\n\nLet any one capable of thinking, but in the full vigour of health of\nbody and mind, placed far above want, and with the prospect, according\nto all probability, of many years of happy life before him, let such an\none go forth, at this season of the year above all, let him see the vast\npreparation for life in all nature, amongst all living creatures, in\nevery tree, and in every plant of grass; let him feel the warmth of the\nsun, becoming every day stronger and stronger; let him be possessed, in\nevery sense, with an impression of the vigour and beauty and glory\naround him; and let him feel no less a vigour in himself, too, of body\nand mind, and infinitely varied power of enjoyment in so many faculties\nof repose and of energy,--and then let him calmly consider what St. Paul\ncould mean, when he says generally to Christians, \"Set your affections\non things above, not on things on the earth; for ye are dead, and your\nlife is hid with Christ in God.\"\n\nLet a person capable of thinking, and such as I have supposed in all\nother respects, consider what St. Paul could mean by calling him \"dead.\"\nWith an almost thrilling consciousness of life, with an almost bounding\nsense of vigour in body and mind, he is told that he is \"dead.\" And\nstranger still, he is told so by one whose recorded life, and existing\nwritings declare that he too must have had in himself a consciousness of\nlife no less lively; that there was in him an activity and energy which\nneither age nor sufferings could quell; that he wielded an influence\nover the minds of thousands, such as kings or conquerors might envy. If\nSt. Paul could stand by our side, think we that he, any more than\nourselves, would be insensible to the power within him, and to the\nbeauty and the glory without? Yet his words are recorded; he bids us not\nset our affections on things on the earth; he declares of himself, and\nof us equally, if we are Christ's servants, that we are dead, and that\nour life is hid with Christ in God.\n\nI have put the difficulty in its strongest form, for it is one well\nworth considering. What St. Paul here urges is indeed the highest\nperfection of Christianity, and therefore of human nature; but it is not\nan impossible perfection, and St. Paul's own life and character are our\nwarrant that it is nothing sickly, or foolish, or fanatical. But let us\nfirst hear the whole of St. Paul's language: \"If ye, then, be risen with\nChrist, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the\nright hand of God. Set your affections on things above, not on things on\nthe earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.\nWhen Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear\nwith him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the\nearth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil\nconcupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.\" \"Mortify,\" I need\nnot say, is to make dead, to destroy. \"Ye are dead;\" therefore let your\nmembers on earth be dead; \"fornication, uncleanness, inordinate\naffection,\" &c. As if he had said, By becoming Christians ye engaged to\nbe dead; and therefore see to it that ye are so. But what he requires us\nto make dead or to destroy, are our evil affections and desires; it is\nmanifest, then, that it is to these that, by becoming Christians, we\nengage to become dead.\n\nThis is true; and it is most certain that Christ requires us to be dead\nonly to what is evil. But the essence of spiritual-mindedness consists\nin this, that it is assumed that with earth, and all things earthly,\nevil or imperfection are closely mixed; so that it is not possible to\nset our affections keenly upon, or to abandon ourselves to the enjoyment\nof, any earthly thing without the danger of those affections and that\nenjoyment becoming evil. In other words, there is that in the state of\nthings within and around us, which, renders it needful to be ever\nwatchful; and watchfulness is inconsistent with an intensity of delight\nand enjoyment.\n\nFor, consider the case which I was just supposing; that lively sense of\nthe beauty of all nature, that indescribable feeling of delight which\narises out of the consciousness of health, and strength and power.\nSuppose that we abandon ourselves to such impressions without restraint,\nand is it not manifest that they are the extreme of godless pride and\nselfishness? For do we not know that in this world, and close to us\nwherever we are, there is, along with all the beauty and enjoyment which\nwe witness, a large portion also of evil, and of suffering? And do we\nnot know that He who gave to the earth its richness, and who set the sun\nto shine in the heavens, and who gave to us that wonderful frame of body\nand mind, whose healthful workings are So delightful to us, that He gave\nthem that we might use both body and mind in His service; that the\nsoldier has something else to do than to gaze like a child on the\nsplendour of his uniform or the brightness of his sword; that those\nfaculties which we feel as it were burning within us, have their work\nbefore them, a work far above their strength, though multiplied a\nthousand fold; that the call to them to be busy is never silent; that\nthere is an infinite voice in the infinite sins and sufferings of\nmillions which proclaims that the contest is raging around us; that\nevery idle moment is treason; that now it is the time for unceasing\nefforts; and that not till the victory is gained may Christ's soldiers\nthrow aside their arms, and resign themselves to enjoyment and to rest?\n\nThen when we turn to the words, \"our life is hid with Christ in God,\"\nthe exceeding greatness of Christ's promises rises upon us in something\nof the fulness of their reality. Some may know the story of that German\nnobleman[12], whose life had been distinguished alike by genius and\nworldly distinctions, and by Christian holiness; and who, in the last\nmorning of his life, when the dawn broke into his sick chamber, prayed\nthat he might be supported to the window, and might look once again upon\nthe rising sun. After looking steadily at it for some time, he cried\nout, \"Oh! if the appearance of this earthly and created thing is so\nbeautiful and so quickening, how much more shall I be enraptured at the\nsight of the unspeakable glory of the Creator Himself!\" That was the\nfeeling of a man whose sense of earthly beauty had all the keenness of a\npoet's enthusiasm; but who, withal, had in his greatest health and\nvigour preserved the consciousness that his life was hid with Christ in\nGod; that the things seen, how beautiful soever, were as nothing to the\nthings which are not seen. And so, if from the feeling of natural\nenjoyment we turn, at once thankfully and earnestly, to remember God's\nservice, and to address ourselves to his work; and sadly remember, that,\nalthough we can enjoy, yet that many are suffering; and that, whilst\nthey are so, enjoyment in us for more than a brief space of needful rest\ncannot but be sin; then there must come upon us, most strongly, the\nimpression of that life where sin and suffering are not; where not God's\nworks only, but God Himself is visible; where the vigour and faculties\nwhich we feel within us are not the passing strength of a decaying body,\nnor the brief prime of a mind which in a few years must sink into\ndotage; but the strength of a body incorruptible and eternal, the\nripeness of a spirit which shall go on growing in wisdom and love\nfor ever.\n\n[Footnote 12: The Baron Von Canitz.]\n\nThus, then, if we consider again St. Paul's meaning, we shall find that,\nhigh and pure as it is, it is nothing unreasonable or impossible; that\nwhat he requires us to be dead to absolutely is that which is evil;\nthat, because of the mixture of evil with ourselves and all around us,\nthis life must not and cannot be a life of entire enjoyment without\nbecoming godless and selfish; that, therefore, our affections cannot be\nset upon earthly things so as to enjoy them in and for themselves\nentirely, without becoming inordinate, and therefore evil. He does\nrequire us, old and young alike, to set our affection on things above:\nto remember that with God, and with Him alone, can be our rest, and the\nfulness of our joy; and amidst our pleasure in earthly things to retain\nin our minds, first, a grateful sense of their Giver; secondly, a\nremembrance of their passing nature; and thirdly, a consciousness of the\nevil that is in the world, which makes it a sin to resign ourselves to\nany enjoyment, except as a permitted refreshment to strengthen us for\nduty to come. Above all, let one feeling be truly cherished, and it\nwill do more, perhaps, than any other to moderate our pleasure in\nearthly things, and to render it safe, and wholesome, and Christianlike.\nThat feeling is the remembrance of our own faults. Let us bear these in\nmind as God does; let us consider how displeasing they are in His sight;\nhow often they are repeated; how little they deserve the enjoyments\nwhich are given us. If this does not change our selfish pleasure into a\nzealous gratitude, then, indeed, sin must have a dominion over us; for\nthe natural effect would be, that our hearts should burn within us for\nvery shame, and should enkindle us to be thankful with all our strength\nfor blessings so undeserved; to show something of our love to God who\nhas so richly shown his love to us.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCORINTHIANS iii. 21-23.\n\n_All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the\nworld, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are\nyours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's_.\n\n\nIt is very possible, that all may not distinctly understand the force of\nthe several clauses of this passage, yet, all, I suppose, would derive a\ngeneral impression from it, that it spoke of the condition of Christians\nin very exalted language, and made it to extend to things in this world,\nas well as to things in the world to come. But can it be good for us to\ndwell on our exaltation? And if we do, may we not dread lest such\nlanguage might be used towards us as that which St. Paul uses in the\nvery next chapter to the Corinthians, \"Now ye are full, now ye are rich,\nye have reigned as kings without us; and I would to God ye did reign,\nthat we also might reign with you.\" It would seem, however, that it\nwould be good for us to dwell on the greatness of our condition and\nprivileges, because St. Paul, who thus upbraids the Corinthians with\ntheir pride, had yet himself immediately before laid the picture of\ntheir high privileges, in the words of the text, in full detail before\nthem, as if he wished them carefully to consider it. And so indeed it\nis. It feeds pride to dwell upon our good qualities or advantages, as\nindividuals, or as a class in society, or as a nation, or as a sect or\nparty; but, to speak generally, our advantages and privileges, as\nChristians, have not a tendency to excite pride; for some reasons in the\nnature of the case; for this reason amongst ourselves particularly,\nbecause the very essence of pride consists in contrast; we are proud\nthat we are, in some one or more points, superior to others who come\nimmediately under our observation. Now, we have so little to do with any\nwho are not Christians, that the contrast is in this case wanting; we\nhave none over whom to be proud; none whom we can glory in surpassing;\nand, therefore, a consideration of our Christian advantages, in the\nabsence of that one element which might feed pride, is likely with us to\nwork in a better manner, and to lead rather to thankfulness and\nincreased exertion.\n\nI say to increased exertion; for what would stop exertion is pride. It\nis the turning back, and pausing to look with satisfaction on what is\nbelow us, rather than the looking upward to the summit, and thinking how\nmuch our actual elevation has brought us on the way towards it. And,\nfurther, there is coupled with every consideration of Christian\nprivileges, the thought of what it must be to leave such privileges\nunimproved. In this respect, how well does the language of the two\nlessons from Deuteronomy suit the lesson from the Epistle to the\nCorinthians. We heard the description of the beauty and richness of the\nland which God gave to his people,--there were their advantages and\nprivileges,--we heard also, the declaration of their unworthiness, and\nthe solemn threatening of vengeance if, after having received good, they\ndid evil. And as the vengeance has fallen upon them to the utmost, so we\nare taught expressly to apply their example to ourselves. \"If God spared\nnot the natural branches,\" such was St. Paul's language to the church at\nRome, \"take heed lest he also spare not thee.\"\n\nLet us not fear, then, to consider more nearly the high privileges\nwhich, as Christians, we enjoy: let us endeavour to understand, not\nmerely generally, but in detail, the exalted language of the text, where\nit is said, that all things are ours; Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, the\nworld, and life, and death, the things of time, and the things of\neternity. These are ours because we are Christ's, and Christ is God's;\nthey are ours so long as we are Christ's, and so far as we are his\ntruly. They are not ours so far as we are not his: they are ours in no\ndegree whatever the moment that he shall declare that we are his\nno longer.\n\n\"Paul, and Apollos, and Peter, are ours.\" This, perhaps, is the\nexpression which we should understand least distinctly of any. It is an\nexpression, however, of deep importance, though perhaps less so here\nthan in congregations of a different sort. I need not, therefore, dwell\non it long now. But the Corinthians, as many Christians have done since,\nwere apt to think more of their being Christians of a certain sort, than\nof being Christians simply: some said, \"We have Paul's view of\nChristianity, the true and sound view of it, free from superstition:\"\nothers said, \"But we have Peter's view of Christianity, one of Christ's\nown apostles, who were with him on earth; ours is the true and earliest\nview of it, free from all innovations:\" and others, again, said, \"Nay,\nbut we have been taught by Apollos, an eloquent man, and mighty in the\nScriptures; one who best understands how to unite the law and the\ngospel; one who has given us the full perfection of Christianity.\" No\ndoubt there were some differences of views even between Paul, and Peter,\nand Apollos; for while, on the one hand, they were all enlightened by\nthe Spirit of God, yet, on the other hand, they retained still their\nhuman differences of character and disposition, which must on several\noccasions have been manifest. But St. Paul does not tell us what these\nwere, nor how far they extended, nor to what degree they had been\nexaggerated by those who heard them. He does not insist upon the truth\nof his own view, nor wish the Corinthians to lay aside their divisions,\nafter the manner so zealously enforced by some persons now, namely, that\nthose who said they were of Peter, or of Apollos, should confess that\nthey had been in error, and declare themselves to be now only of Paul.\nSuch a condemnation of schism he would have held to be in itself in the\nhighest degree schismatical. But St. Paul was earnest, that schism\nshould be ended after another way than this, by all parties remembering,\nthat whatever became of the truth or falsehood of their own particular\nviews of Christianity, yet, that Christianity according to any of their\nviews was the one great thing which was their glory and their salvation.\n\"Paul, and Apollos, and Peter, are all yours: but you are Christ's.\" You\nshould not glory in men; that you belong to a purer church than other\nChristians; but that you belong to the church of Christ; that church,\nwhich, in its most pure particular branches, has never been free from\nsome mixture of human infirmity and error; nor yet, in its worst\nbranches, has ever lost altogether the seal of Christ's Spirit, nor\nceased to believe in Christ crucified.\n\nBut the next words are of more particular concern to us here. \"The\nworld, and life, and death, and things present, and things to come, are\nall ours.\" They are all ours, so far as we are Christ's. The world is\nours; its manifold riches and delights, its various wisdom, all are\nours. They are ours, not as a thing stolen, and which will be taken from\nus with a heavy over-payment of penalty, because we stole it when it did\nnot belong to us; but they are ours by God's free gift, to minister to\nour comfort, and to our good. And this is the great difference; the good\nthings of this world are stolen by many; but they belong, by God's gift,\nto those only who are Christ's: and there is the sure sign, generally,\nto be seen of their being stolen,--an unwillingness that He to whom of\nright they belong should see them. What a man steals, he enjoys, as it\nwere, in fear: if the owner of it finds him with it, then all his\nenjoyment is gone; he wishes that he had never touched it; it is no\nsource of pleasure to him, but merely one of terror. And so it is often\nwith our stolen pleasures,--stolen, I mean, not in respect of man, but\nof God,--stolen, because we do not feel them to be God's gift, nor\nreceive them, as from him, with thankfulness. They may be very lawful\npleasures, so far as other men are concerned; pleasures bought, it may\nbe, with our own money, or given to us by our own friends, and enjoyed\nwithout any injury to any one. They may be the very simplest enjoyments\nof life, our health, the fresh air, our common food, our common\namusements, our common society; things most permitted to us all, as far\nas man is concerned, but yet things which are constantly stolen by us,\nbecause we take them without God's leave, and enjoy them not as his\ngifts. They are all his, and he gives them freely to his children. If we\nare his children, he gives them to us; and delights in our enjoyment of\nthem, as any human father loves to see the pleasure of his children in\nthose things which it is good for them to enjoy. But then, is any child\nafraid of his father so seeing him? or is the thought of his father any\ninterruption to his enjoyment? If it would be, we should be sure that\nthere was something wrong; that the enjoyment, either in itself, or with\nrespect to the particular case of that child, was a stolen one. And even\nas simple is the state of our dread of God, of our wish to keep his\nname and his thought away from us. It is the sure sign that our\npleasures are stolen, either as being wrong in themselves, or much\noftener, because we have taken them without being fit for them, have\nsnatched them for ourselves, instead of receiving them at the hands of\nGod. Two of us may be daily doing the very same thing in most\nrespects,--enjoying actually the very same pleasures, whether of body or\nof mind; the same exercises, the same studies, the same indulgences, the\nsame society,--and yet these very same things may belong rightfully to\nthe one, and be stolen by the other. To the one they may come with a\ndouble blessing, as the assurance of God's greater love hereafter: to\nthe other, they are but an addition to that sad account, when all good\nthings enjoyed here, having been not our own rightly, but stolen, shall\nbe paid for in over measure, by evil things to be suffered hereafter.\n\nAnd what I have said of the world, will apply also to life and to death.\nOh, the infinite difference whether life is ours, or but stolen for an\ninstant; whether death is ours, our subject, ministering only to our\ngood; or our fearful enemy, our ever keen pursuer, from whose grasp we\nhave escaped for a few short years, but who is following fast after us,\nand when he has once caught us will hold us fast for ever! Have we ever\nseen his near approach--has he ever forced himself upon our notice\nwhether we would or no? But two days since he was amongst us,--we were,\nas it were, forced to look upon him. Did we think that he was ours, or\nthat we were his? If we are his, then indeed he is fearful: fearful to\nthe mere consciousness of nature; a consciousness which no arguments can\novercome; fearful if it be merely the parting from life, if it be\nmerely the resigning that wonderful thing which we call our being. It is\nfearful to go from light to darkness, from all that we have ever known\nand loved, to that of which we know and love nothing. But if death, even\nthus stingless, is yet full of horror, what is he with his worst sting\nbeside, the sting of our sins? What is he when he is taking us, not to\nnothingness, but to judgment? He is indeed so fearful then, that no\nwords can paint him half so truly as our foreboding dread of him, and no\narguments which the wit of man can furnish can strip him of his terrors.\n\nBut what if death too, as well as life, be ours?--which he is, if we are\nChrist's; for Christ has conquered him. If he be ours, our servant, our\nminister, sent but to bring us into the presence of our Lord, then,\nindeed, his terrors, his merely natural terrors, the outside roughness\nof his aspect, are things which the merest child need not shrink from.\nThen disease and decay, however painful to living friends to look upon,\nhave but little pain for him who is undergoing them. For it is not only\namidst the tortures of actual martyrdom that Christians have been more\nthan conquerors,--in common life, on the quiet or lonely sick bed, under\nthe grasp of fever or of consumption, the conquest has been witnessed as\noften and as completely. It is not a little thing when the faintest\nwhisper of thought to which expiring nature can give utterance breathes\nof nothing but of peace and of forgiveness. It is not a little thing\nwhen the name of Christ possesses us wholly; not distinctly, it may be,\nfor reason may be too weak for this; but with an indescribable power of\nsupport and comfort. Or even if there be a last conflict,--a season of\nterror and of pain, a valley of the shadow of death, dark and\ngloomy,--yet even there Christ is with his servants, and as their trial\nis so is his love. Thus it is, if death be ours; and death is ours, if\nwe be Christ's. And are we not Christ's? We bear his name, we have his\noutward seal of belonging to his people,--can we refuse to be his in\nheart and true obedience? Would we rather steal our pleasures than enjoy\nthem as our own; steal life for an instant, rather than have it our sure\npossession for ever? Would we rather be fugitives from death, fugitives\nwhom he will surely recover and hold fast, than be able to say and to\nfeel that death, as well as life is ours, things to come, as well as\nthings present, because we are truly Christ's?\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGALATIANS V. 16, 17.\n\n_Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. For\nthe flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;\nand these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the\nthings that ye would_.\n\n\n\"We cannot do the things that we would.\" These are words of familiar and\ncommon use; this is the language in which we are all apt to excuse,\nwhether to ourselves or to others, the various faults of our conduct. We\nshould be glad to do better, so we say and think, but the power to do so\nfails us. And so far it may seem that we are but echoing the apostle's\nlanguage; for he says the very same thing, \"Ye cannot do the things that\nye would.\" Yet the words as we use them, and as the apostle used them,\nhave the most opposite meaning in the world. We use them as a reason why\nwe should be satisfied, the apostle as a reason why we should be\nalarmed; we intend them to be an excuse, the apostle meant them to be a\ncertain sign of condemnation.\n\nThe reasons of this difference may be understood very easily. We, in the\ncommon course of justice, should think it hard to punish a man for not\ndoing what he cannot do. We think, therefore, that if we say that we\ncannot do well, we establish also our own claim to escape from\npunishment. But God declares that a state of sin is and must be a state\nof misery; and that if we cannot escape the sin, we cannot escape the\nmisery. According to God's meaning, then, the words, \"Ye cannot do the\nthings which ye would,\" mean no other than this: \"Ye cannot escape from\nhell; ye cannot be redeemed from the power of death and of Satan; the\npower is wanting in you, however much you may wish it: death has got\nyou, and it will keep you for ever.\" So that, in this way, sickness or\nweakness of the soul is very like sickness or weakness of the body. We\ncannot help being ill or weak in many cases: is that any reason why,\naccording to the laws of God's providence, we should not suffer the pain\nof illness? Or is it not, rather, clear that we suffer it just because\nwe have not the power to get rid of it; if we had the power to be well,\nwe should be well. A man's evils are not gone because he wishes them\naway; it is not he who would fain see his chains broken, that escapes\nfrom his bondage; but he who has the strength to rend them asunder.\n\nThus, then, in St. Paul's language, \"Ye cannot do the things that ye\nwould,\" means exactly, \"Ye are not redeemed, but in bondage; ye are not\nsaved, but lost.\" But he goes on to the reason why we cannot do the\nthings which we would, which is, \"because the flesh and the Spirit are\ncontrary to one another,\" and pull us, as it were, different ways. Just\nas we might say of a man in illness, that the reason why he is not well,\nas he wishes to be, is because his healthy nature and his disease are\ncontrary to one another, and are striving within him for the mastery.\nHis blood, according to its healthy nature, would flow calmly and\nsteadily; his food, according to his healthy nature, would be received\nwith appetite, and would give him nourishment and strength; but, behold,\nthere is in him now another nature, contrary to his healthy nature: and\nthis other nature makes his blood flow with feverish quickness, and\nmakes food distasteful to him, and makes the food which he has eaten\nbefore to become, as it were, poison; it does not nourish him or\nstrengthen, but is a burden, a weakness, and a pain. As long as these\ntwo natures thus struggle within him, the man is sick; as soon as the\ndiseased nature prevails, the man sinks and dies. He does not wish to\ndie,--not at all,--most earnestly, it may be, does he wish to live; but\nhis diseased nature has overcome his healthy nature, and so he must die.\nIf he would live, in any sense that deserves to be called life, the\ndiseased nature must not overcome, must not struggle equally; it must be\novercome, it must be kept down, it must be rendered powerless; and then,\nwhen the healthy nature has prevailed, its victory is health\nand strength.\n\nSo far all is alike; but what follows afterwards? As \"ye cannot do the\nthings which ye would, because the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to\none another,\"--what then? \"Therefore,\" says the apostle, \"walk in the\nSpirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.\" Surely there is\nsome thing marvellous in this. For, let us speak the same language to\nthe sick man: tell him, \"Follow thy healthy nature, and them shalt not\nbe sick,\" what would the words be but a bitter mockery? \"How can you bid\nme,\" he would say, \"to follow my healthy nature, when ye know that my\ndiseased nature has bound me? Have ye no better comfort than this to\noffer me? Tell me rather how I may become able to follow my healthy\nnature; show me the strength which may help my weakness; or else your\nwords are vain, and I never can recover.\" Most true would be this\nanswer; and therefore disease and death do make havoc of us all, and the\nhealthy nature is in the end borne down by the diseased nature, and\nsooner or later the great enemy triumphs over us, and, in spite of all\nour wishes and fond desires for life, we go down, death's conquered\nsubjects, to the common grave of all living.\n\nThis happens to the bodies of us all; to the souls of only too many. But\nwhy does it not happen also to the souls of all? How is it that some do\nfulfil the apostle's bidding? that they do walk in the Spirit, and\ntherefore do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; and therefore having\nconquered their diseased nature, they do walk according to their\nhealthful nature, and are verily able to do, and do continually, the\nvery things that they would? Surely this so striking difference, between\nthe universal conquest of our diseased nature in the body, and the\noccasional victory of the healthy nature in the soul, shows us clearly\nthat for the soul there has appeared a Redeemer already, while for the\nbody the redemption is delayed till death shall be swallowed up\nin victory.\n\nFor most true is it that in ourselves we could not deliver ourselves\neither soul or body. \"Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the\nlusts of the flesh,\" might have been as cruel a mockery to us, as the\nsimilar words addressed to the man bodily sick,--\"Walk according to thy\nhealthy nature, and thou shalt not suffer from disease.\" They might have\nbeen a mockery, but blessed be God, they are not. They are not, because\nGod has given us a Redeemer; they are not, because Christ has died, yea\nrather has risen again; and because the Spirit of Christ helpeth our\ninfirmities, and gives us that power which by ourselves we had not.\n\nNot by wishing then to be redeemed, but by being redeemed, shall we\nescape the power of death. Not by saying, \"Alas! we cannot do the things\nthat we would!\" but by becoming able to do them. Walk in the Spirit, and\nye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; but if ye do fulfil them,\nye must die.\n\nThe power to walk in the Spirit is given by the Spirit; but either all\nhave not this power, or all do not use it. I think rather it is that all\nhave it not, for if they had it, a power so mighty and so beneficent,\nthey surely could not help using it. All have it not; but I do not say\nthat they all might not have it; on the contrary, all might have it, but\nin point of fact they have it not. They have it not because they seek it\nnot: for an idle wish is one thing; a steady persevering pursuit is\nanother. They seek not the Spirit by the appointed means, the means of\nprayer and attending to God's holy word, and thinking of life and death\nand judgment.\n\nDo those seek the spirit of God who never pray to God? Clearly they do\nnot. For they who never pray to God never think of Him; they who never\nthink of Him, by the very force of the terms it follows that they cannot\nseek his help. And yet they say, \"Oh, I wish to be good, but I cannot!\"\nBut this, in the language of the Scripture, is a lie. If they did wish\nto be good they would seek the help that could make them so. There is no\nboy so young as not to know that, when temptation is on him to evil,\nprayer to God will strengthen him for good. As sure as we live, if he\nwished really to overcome the temptation, he would seek the strength.\n\nConsider what prayer is, and see how it cannot but strengthen us. He who\nstands in a sheltered place, where the wind cannot reach him, and with\nno branches over his head to cause a damp shade, and then holds up his\nface or his hands to the sun, in his strength, can he help feeling the\nsun's warmth? Now, thus it is in prayer: we turn to God, we bring our\nsouls, with all their thoughts and feelings, fully before Him; and by\nthe very act of so doing, we shelter ourselves from every chill of\nworldly care, we clear away every intercepting screen of worldly thought\nand pleasure. It is an awful thing so to submit ourselves wholly to the\ninfluence of God. But do it; and as surely as the sun will warm us if we\nstand in the sun, so will the Giver of light and life to the soul pour\nhis Spirit of life into us; even as we pray, we become changed into\nhis image.\n\nThis is not spoken extravagantly. I ask of any one who has ever prayed\nin earnest, whether for that time, and while he was so praying, he did\nnot feel, as it were, another man; a man able to do the things which he\nwould; a man redeemed and free. But most true is it that this feeling\npasses away but too soon, when the prayer is done. Still for the time,\nthere is the effect; we know what it is to put ourselves, in a manner,\nbeneath the rays of God's grace; but we do not abide there long, and\nthen we feel the damp and the cold of earth again.\n\nTherefore says the Apostle, \"Pray without ceasing.\" If we could\nliterally pray always, it is clear that we should sin never: it may be\nthus that Christ's redeemed, at his coming, as they will be for ever\nwith him and with the Father, can therefore sin no more. For where God\nis, there is no place left for sin. But we cannot pray always: we cannot\npray the greatest portion of our time; nay, we can pray, in the common\nsense of the term, only a very small portion of it. Yet, at least, we\ncan take heed that we do pray sometimes, and that our prayer be truly in\nearnest. We can pray then for God's help to abide with us when we are\nnot praying: we can commit to his care, not only our hours of sleep, but\nour hours of worldly waking. \"I have work to do, I have a busy world\naround me; eye, ear, and thought will be all needed for that work, done\nin and amidst that busy world; now, ere I enter upon it, I would commit\neye, ear, thought and wish to Thee. Do thou bless them, and keep their\nwork thine; that as, through thy natural laws, my heart beats and my\nblood flows without my thought for them, so my spiritual life may hold\non its course, through, thy help, at those times when my mind cannot\nconsciously turn to Thee to commit each particular thought to\nthy service.\"\n\nBut I dare not say that by any the most urgent prayers, uttered only at\nnight and morning, God's blessing can thus be gained for the whole\nintervening day. For, in truth, if we did nothing more, the prayers\nwould soon cease to be urgent; they would become formal, that is, they\nwould be no prayers at all. For prayer lives in the heart, and not in\nthe mouth; it consists not of words, but wishes. And no man can set\nhimself heartily to wish twice a day for things, of which he never\nthinks at other times in the day. So that prayer requires in a manner to\nbe fed, and its food is to be found in reading and thinking; in reading\nGod's word, and in thinking about him, and about the world as being\nhis work.\n\nYoung men and boys are generally, we know, not fond of reading for its\nown sake; and when they do read for their own pleasure, they naturally\nread something that interests them. Now, what are called serious books,\nincluding certainly the Bible, do not interest them, and therefore they\nare not commonly read. What shall we say, then? Are they not interested\nin becoming good, in learning to do the things which, they would? If\nthey are not, if they care not for the bondage of sin and death, there\nis, of course, nothing to be said; then they are condemned already; they\nare not the children of God. But one says, \"I wish I could find interest\nin a serious book, but I cannot.\" Observe again, \"Ye cannot do the\nthings that ye would,\" because the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to\none another. However, to return to him who says this, the answer to him\nis this,--\"The interest cannot come without the reading; it may and\nwill come with it.\" For interest in a subject depends very much on our\nknowledge of it; and so it is with, the things of Christ. As long as the\nlife and death of Christ are strange to us, how can we be interested\nabout them? but read them, thinking of what they were, and what were\ntheir ends, and who can help being interested about them? Read them\ncarefully, and read them often, and they will bring before our minds the\nvery thoughts which we need, and which the world keeps continually from\nus, the thoughts which naturally feed our prayers; thoughts not of self,\nnor selfishness, nor pleasure, nor passion, nor folly, but of such\nthings as are truly God's--love, and self-denial, and purity, and\nwisdom. These thoughts come by reading the Scriptures; and strangely do\nthey mingle at first with the common evil thoughts of our evil nature.\nBut they soon find a home within us, and more good thoughts gather round\nthem, and there comes a time when daily life with its various business,\nwhich, once seemed to shut them out altogether, now ministers to their\nnourishment.\n\nWherefore, in conclusion, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil\nthe lusts of the flesh; but do even the things which ye would. And ye\ncan walk in the Spirit, if ye seek for the Spirit; if ye seek him by\nprayer, and by reading of Christ, and the things of Christ. If we will\ndo neither, then most assuredly we are not seeking him; if we seek him\nnot, we shall never find him. If we find him not, we shall never be able\nto do the things that we would; we shall never be redeemed, never made\nfree, but our souls shall be overcome by their evil nature, as surely as\nour bodies by their diseased nature; till one death shall possess us\nwholly, a death of body and of soul, the death of eternal misery.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLUKE xiv. 33.\n\n_Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot\nbe my disciple_.\n\n\nIn order to show that these words were not spoken to the apostles alone,\nbut to all Christians, we have only to turn to the 25th and 26th verses,\nwhich run thus:--\"And there went great multitudes with him, and he\nturned and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his\nfather and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea\nand his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.\" The words were not,\nthen, spoken to the twelve apostles only, as if they contained merely\nsome rule of extraordinary piety, which was not to be required of common\nChristians; they were spoken to a great multitude; they were spoken to\nwarn all persons in that multitude that not one of them could become a\nChristian, unless he gave himself up to Christ body and soul. Thus\ndeclaring that there is but one rule for all; a rule which the highest\nChristian can never go beyond; and which the lowest, if he would be a\nChristian at all, must make the foundation of his whole life.\n\nNow take the words, either of the text or of the 26th verse, and is it\npossible to avoid seeing that, on the very lowest interpretation, they\ndo insist upon a very high standard; that they do require a very entire\nand devoted obedience? Is it possible for any one who believes what\nChrist has said, to rest contented, either for himself or for others,\nwith that very low and very unchristian standard which he sees and knows\nto prevail generally in the world? Is it possible for him not to wish,\nfor himself and for all in whose welfare he is interested, that they may\nbelong to the small minority in matters of principle and practice,\nrather than to the large majority?\n\nAnd because he so wishes, one who endeavours to follow Christ sincerely\ncan never be satisfied with the excuse that he acts and thinks quite as\nwell as the mass of persons about him; it can never give him comfort,\nwith regard to any judgment or practice, to be told, in common language,\n\"Everybody thinks so; everybody does so.\" If, indeed, this expression\n\"everybody\" might be taken literally; if it were quite true, without any\nexception, that \"everybody thought or did so;\" then I grant that it\nwould have a very great authority; so great that it would be almost a\nmark of madness to run counter to it. For what all men, all without a\nsingle exception, were to agree in, must be some truth which the human\nmind could not reject without insanity,--like the axioms of science, or\nsome action which if we did not we could not live, as sleeping and\neating; or if there be any moral point so universally agreed upon, then\nit must be something exceedingly general: as, for instance, that truth\nis in itself to be preferred to falsehood; which to dispute would be\nmonstrous. But, once admit a single exception, and the infallible virtue\nof the rule ceases. I can conceive one single good and wise man's\njudgment and practice, requiring, at any rate, to be carefully attended\nto, and his reasons examined, although millions upon millions stood\nagainst him. But go on with the number of exceptions, and bring the\nexpression \"everybody,\" to its real meaning, which is only \"most\npersons,\" \"the great majority of the world;\" then the rule becomes of\nno virtue at all, but very often the contrary. If in matters of morals\nmany are on one side and some on the other, it is impossible to\npronounce at once which are most likely to be right: it depends on the\nsort of case on which the difference exists; for the victories of truth\nand of good are but partial. It is not all truth that triumphs in the\nworld, nor all good; but only truth and good up to a certain point. Let\nthem once pass this point, and their progress pauses. Their followers,\nin the mass, cannot keep up with them thus far: fewer and fewer are\nthose who still press on in their company, till at last even these fail;\nand there is a perfection at which they are deserted by all men, and are\nin the presence of God and of Christ alone.\n\nThus it is that, up to a certain point, in moral matters the majority\nare right; and thus Christ's gospel, in a great many respects, goes\nalong with public opinion, and the voice of society is the voice of\ntruth. But this, to use the expression of our Lord's parable, this is\nbut half the height of that tower whose top should reach unto heaven.\nChristianity ascends a great deal higher; and therefore so many who\nbegin to build are never able to finish. Christ's disciples and the\nworld's disciples work for a certain way together; and thus far the\nworld's disciples call themselves Christ's, and so Christ's followers\nseem to be a great majority. But Christ warns us expressly that we are\nnot his disciples merely by going a certain way on the same road with\nthem. They only are His, who follow Him to the end. They only are His,\nwho follow him in spite of everything, who leave all rather than leave\nhim. For the rest, He does not own them. What the world can give they\nmay enjoy; but Christ's kingdom is shut against them.\n\nSpeaking, then, according to Christ's judgment, and we must hold those\nto be of the world, and not of Him,--and therefore in God's judgment, to\nbe the evil and not the good,--who do not make up their minds to live in\nHis service, and to refer their actions, words, and thoughts to His\nwill. Who these are it is very true that we many times cannot know: only\nwe may always fear that they are the majority of society; and therefore\nwe are rather anxious in any individual's case to get a proof that he is\nnot one of them, because, as they are very many, there is always a sort\nof presumption that any given person is of this number, unless there is\nsome evidence, or some presumption at any rate, for thinking\nthe contrary.\n\nWhen we speak, then, of the good and of the evil side in human life, in\nany society, whether smaller or larger,--this is what we mean, or should\nmean. The evil side contains much that is, up to a certain point, good:\nthe good side,--for does it not consist of human beings?--contains,\nunhappily, much in it that is evil. Not all in the one is to be\navoided,--far from it; nor is all in the other by any means to be\nfollowed. But still those are called evil in God's judgment who live\naccording to their own impulses, or according to the law of the society\naround them; and those are to be called good, who, in their principles,\nwhatever may be the imperfections of their practice, endeavour in all\nthings to live according to the will of Christ.\n\nAnd in this view the characters of Jacob and Esau are, as it seems to\nme, full of instruction; and above all to us here. For I have often\nobserved that the early age of an individual bears a great resemblance\nto the early age of the human race, or of any particular nation; so that\nthe characters of the Old Testament are often more suited, in a\nChristian country, for the instruction of the young than for those of\nmore advanced years. To Christian men, looking at Jacob's life, with the\nfaults recorded of it, it is sometimes strange that he should be spoken\nof as good. But it seems that in a rude state of society, where\nknowledge is very low, and passion very strong, the great virtue is to\nbe freed from the dominion of the prevailing low principle, to see and\nresolve that we ought and will live according to knowledge, and not\naccording to passion or impulse. The knowledge may be very imperfect,\nand probably is so: the practice may in many respects offend against\nknowledge, and probably will do so: yet is a great step taken; it is\n_the_ virtue of man, in such a state of society, to follow, though\nimperfectly, principle, where others follow instinct, or the opinion of\ntheir fellows. It is the great distinguishing mark, in such a state of\nthings, between the good and the evil; for this reason, amongst many\nothers, that it is the virtue, under such, circumstances, of the hardest\nattainment.\n\nNow, the Scripture judgment of Jacob and Esau, should be in an especial\nmanner the basis of our judgment with regard to the young. None can\ndoubt, that amongst the young, when they form a society of their own,\nthe great temptation is to live by impulse, or according to the opinion\nof those around them. It is like a light breaking in upon darkness, when\na young person is led to follow a higher standard, and to live according\nto God's will. Esau, in his faults and amiable points alike, is the very\nimage of the prevailing character amongst boys; sometimes violently\nrevengeful, as when Esau looked forward with satisfaction to the\nprospect of his father's death, because then we should be able to slay\nhis brother Jacob; sometimes full of generosity, as when Esau forgot all\nhis grounds of complaint against his brother, and received him on his\nreturn from Mesopotamia with open arms;--but habitually careless, and\nsetting the present before the future, the lower gratification before\nthe higher, as when Esau sold his birth-right for a mess of pottage. And\nthe point to be noted is, that, because of this carelessness, this\nprofaneness or ungodliness, as it is truly called in the New Testament,\nEsau is distinguished from those who were God's people; the promises\nwere not his, nor yet the blessing. This is remarkable, because Esau's\nfaults, undoubtedly were just the faults of his age: he was no worse\nthan the great majority of those around him; he lived as we should say,\nin our common language, that it was natural for him to live. He had,\ntherefore, precisely all those excuses which are commonly urged for the\nprevailing faults of boys; yet it is quite certain that the Scripture\nholds him out as a representative of those who were not on the side\nof God,\n\nIf the Scripture has so judged of Esau and Jacob, it must be the model\nfor our judgments of those whose circumstances, on account of their\nbelonging to a society consisting wholly of persons young in age,\ngreatly resemble the circumstances of the early society of the world. I\nlay the stress on the belonging to a society wholly formed of young\npersons; for the case of young persons brought up at home, is extremely\ndifferent; and their circumstances would be best suited by a different\nscriptural example. But here, with you, I am quite sure that the great\ndistinguishing mark between good and evil, is the endeavouring, or not\nendeavouring, to rise above the carelessness of the society of which you\nare members; the determining, or not determining, to judge of things by\nanother rule than that of school morality or honour; the trying, or not\ntrying, to please God, instead of those around you: for the notions and\nmaxims of a society of young persons are like the notions and maxims of\nmen in a half-civilized age, a strange mixture of right and wrong; or\nrather wrong in their result, although with some right feeling in them,\nand therefore as a guide, false and mischievous. That it is natural to\nfollow these maxims, is quite obvious: they are the besetting sin of\nyour particular condition; and it is always according to our corrupt\nnature to follow our besetting sin. It is quite natural that you should\nbe careless, profane, mistaking evil for good, and good for evil; but\nsalvation is not for those who follow their nature, but for those in\nwhom God's grace has overcome its evil; it is for those, in Christ's\nlanguage, who take up their cross and follow him; that is, for those who\nstruggle against their evil nature, that they may gain a better nature,\nand be born, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit of God.\n\nWhat is to be said to this? or what qualification, or compromise, is to\nbe made in it? The words of the text will authorize us, at any rate, to\nmake none: their language is not that of indulgent allowance; but it is\na call, a loud and earnest, even a severe, call, it may be, in the\njudgment of our evil nature,--to shake off the weight that hangs about\nus; to deliver our hearts from the dominion of that which cannot profit,\nand to submit them to Christ alone. This is God's judgment, this is\nChrist's word; and we cannot and dare not qualify it. They are evil, for\nGod and Christ declare it, who judge and live after the maxims of the\nsociety around them, and not after Christ; they are evil who are\ncareless; they are evil who live according to their own blind and\ncapricious feelings, now hot, now cold; they are evil who call evil\ngood, and good evil, because they have not known the Father nor Christ.\nThis, and nothing less, we say, lest we should be found false witnesses\nof God: but if this language, which is that of Scripture, seem harsh, to\nany one, oh! let him remember how soon he may change it into the\nlanguage of the most abundant mercy, of the tenderest love; that if he\ncalls upon God, God is ready to hear; that if he seeks to know and to do\nGod's will, God will be found by him, and will strengthen him; that it\nis true kindness not to disguise from him his real danger, but earnestly\nto conjure him to flee from it, and to offer our humblest prayers to\nGod, for him and ourselves, that our judgments and our practice may be\nformed only after his example.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE X.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1 TIMOTHY i. 9.\n\n_The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and\ndisobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy\nand profane_.\n\n\nThese words explain the meaning of a great many passages in St. Paul's\nEpistles, in which also he speaks of the law, and of not being under the\nlaw, and other such expressions. And it is clear also, that he is not\nspeaking solely, or chiefly, or, in any considerable degree, of the\nceremonial law; but much more of the law of moral good, the law which\ntold men how they ought to live, and how they ought not. This law, he\nsays, is not made for good men, but for evil: a thing so plain, that we\nmay well wonder how any could ever have misunderstood it. It is so\nmanifest, that strict rules are required, just exactly in proportion to\nour inability or want of will to rule ourselves; it is so very plain,\nthat, with regard to those crimes which we are under no temptation to\ncommit, we feel exactly as if there were no law. Which of us ever\nthinks, as a matter of personal concern, of the law which sentences to\ndeath murderers, or housebreakers, or those who maliciously set fire to\ntheir neighbours' property? Do we not feel that, as far as our own\nconduct is concerned, it would be exactly the same thing if no such law\nwere in existence? We should no more murder, or rob, or set fire to\nhouses and barns, if the law were wholly done away, than we do now that\nit is in force.\n\nThere are, then, some points in which we feel practically that we are\nnot under the law, but dead to it; that the law is not made for us: but\ndo we think, therefore, that we may murder, and rob, and burn? or do we\nnot rather feel that such a notion would be little short of madness? We\nare not under the law, because we do not need it; not because there is\nin reality no law to punish us if we do need it. And just of this kind\nis that general freedom from the law, of which St. Paul speaks, as the\nhigh privilege of true Christians.\n\nBut yet St. Paul would not at all mean that any Christian is altogether\nwithout the law: that is, that there are no points at all in which his\ninclination is not to evil, and in which, therefore, he needs the fear\nof God to restrain him from it. When he says of himself, that he kept\nunder his body lest that by any means he should become a castaway; just\nso far as this fear of being a castaway possessed him, that is, just so\nfar as there were any evil tendencies in him, which required him to keep\nthem under by an effort, just so far was he under the law. And this is\nso, as we full well know, with us all; for as there is none of us in\nwhom sin is utterly dead, so neither can there be any of us who is\naltogether dead to the law.\n\nYet, although this be so, there is no doubt that the gospel wishes to\nconsider us as generally dead to the law, in order that we really may\nbecome so continually more and more. It supposes that the Spirit of God,\npresenting to our minds the sight of God's love in Christ, sets us free\nfrom the law of sin and death; that is, that a sense of thankfulness to\nGod, and love of God and of Christ, will be so strong a motive, that we\nshall, generally speaking, need no other; that it will so work upon us,\nas to make us feel good, easy, and delightful, and thus to become dead\nto the law. And there is no doubt also, that that same freedom from the\nlaw, which we ourselves experience daily, in respect of some particular\ngreat crimes, (for, as I said, we do not feel that it is the fear of the\nlaw which keeps us from murder or from robbing,) that very same freedom\nis felt by good men in many other points, where it may be that we\nourselves do not feel it. A common instance may be given with respect to\nprayer, and the outward worship of God. There are a great many who feel\nthis as a duty; but there are many also to whom it is not so much a\nduty, as a privilege and a pleasure; and these are dead to the law which\ncommands us to be instant in prayer, just as we, in general, are dead to\nthe law which commands us to do no murder.\n\nThis being understood, it will be perfectly plain, why St. Paul, along\nwith all his language as to the law being passed away, and our being\nbecome dead to it, yet uses, very frequently, language of another kind,\nwhich shows that the law is not dead in itself, but lives, and ever will\nlive. He says, \"We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,\nthat every one may receive according to what he has done in the body.\"\nAnd he adds, \"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade\nmen.\" But the judgment, and the terror of the Lord, mean precisely what\nare meant by the law. And this language of St. Paul shows more clearly,\nthat, unless we are first dead to the law, the law is not, and never\nwill be dead to us.\n\nI should not have thought it useless, to have offered merely this\nexplanation of a language, which is very common in the New Testament,\nwhich, forms one of its characteristic points, (for St. John's\nexpression of \"Perfect love casteth out fear,\" is exactly equivalent to\nSt. Paul's, \"That we are dead to the law,\") and which has been often\nmisunderstood, or misrepresented. But yet I am well aware, that mere\nexplanations of Scripture cannot be expected to interest those to whom\nScripture is not familiar. The answer to a riddle would be very soon\nforgotten, unless the riddle had first at once amused and puzzled us.\nJust so, explanations of Scripture, to be at all valued, must suppose a\nprevious knowledge of, and desire to understand, the difficulty; and\nthis we cannot expect to find in very young persons. Thus far, then,\nwhat I have said has been necessarily addressed, I do not say, or mean,\nto the oldest part of my hearers only, but yet to the older, and more\nconsidering part of them. But the subject is capable, I think, of being\nbrought much more closely home to us; for what St. Paul says of the law,\nwith reference to all mankind, is precisely that state of mind which one\nwould wish to see here; and the mistakes of his meaning are just such as\nare often prevalent, and are likely to do great mischief, with regard to\nthe motives to be appealed to in education.\n\nNow, what is the case in the Scripture? Men had been subject to a strict\nlaw of rewards and punishments, appealing directly to their hopes, and\nto their fears. The gospel offered itself to them, as a declaration of\nGod's love to them; so wonderful, that it seemed as though it could not\nbut excite them to love him in return. It also raised their whole\nnature; their understandings, no less than their affections; and thus\nled them to do God's will, from another and higher feeling than they had\nfelt heretofore; to do it, not because they must, but because they loved\nit. And to such as answered to this heavenly call, God laid aside, if I\nmay venture so to speak, all his terrors; he showed himself to them only\nas a loving father, between whom and his children there was nothing but\nmutual affection; who would be loved by them, and love them forever. But\nto those who answered not to it, and far more, who dared to abuse it;\nwho thought that God's love was weakness; that the liberty to which they\nwere called, was the liberty of devils, the liberty of doing evil as\nthey would; to all such, God was still a consuming fire, and their most\nmerciful Saviour himself was a judge to try their very hearts and reins;\nin short, the gospel was to them, not salvation, but condemnation; it\nawakened not the better, but the baser parts of their nature; it did not\ndo away, but doubled their guilt, and therefore brought upon them, and\nwill bring through all eternity, a double measure of punishment.\n\nNow all this applies exactly to that earlier and, as it were,\npreparatory life, which ends not in death, but in manhood. The state of\nboyhood begins under a law. It is a great mistake to address always the\nreason of a child, when you ought rather to require his obedience. Do\nthis, do not do that; if you do this, I shall love you; if you do not, I\nshall punish you;--such is the state, most clearly a state of law, under\nwhich we are, and must be, placed at the beginning of education. But we\nshould desire and endeavour to see this state of law succeeded by\nsomething better; we should desire so to unfold the love of Christ as to\ndraw the affections towards him; we should desire so to raise the\nunderstanding as that it may fasten itself, by its own native tendrils,\nround the pillar of truth, without requiring to be bound to it by\nexternal bands. We should avoid all unnecessary harshness; we should\nspeak and act with all possible kindness; because love, rather than\nfear, love both of God and man, is the motive which we particularly wish\nto awaken. Thus, keeping punishment in the background and, as it were,\nout of sight, and putting forward encouragement and kindness, we should\nattract, as it were, the good and noble feelings of those with, whom we\nare dealing, and invite them to open, and to answer to, a system of\nconfidence and kindness, rather than risk the chilling and hardening\nthem by a system of mistrust and severity.\n\nAnd for those who do answer to this call, how really true is it that\nthey do soon become dead, in great measure, to the law of the place\nwhere they are living! How little do they generally feel its restraints,\nor its tasks, burdensome! How very little have they to do with its\npunishments! Led on by degrees continually higher and higher, their\nrelations with us become more and more relations of entire confidence\nand kindness; and when at last their trial is over, and they pass from\nthis first life, as I have ventured to call it, into their second life\nof manhood, how beautifully are they ripened for that state! how\nnaturally do all the restraints of this first life fall away, like the\nmortal body of the perfected Christian; and they enter upon the full\nliberty of manhood, fitted at once to enjoy and to improve it!\n\nBut observe, that St. Paul does not suppose even the best Christian to\nbe without the law altogether: there will ever be some points in which\nhe will need to remember it. And so it is unkindness, rather than\nkindness, and a very mischievous mistake, to forget that here, in this\nour preparatory life, the law cannot cease altogether with any one; that\nit is not possible to find a perfect sense and feeling of right existing\nin every action; nay, that it is even unreasonable to seem to expect it.\nLittle faults, little irregularities, there always will be, with which\nthe law is best fitted to deal; which should be met, I mean, by a system\nof rules and of punishments, not severe, certainly, nor one at all\ninconsistent with general respect, kindness, and confidence; but which\ncheck the particular faults alluded to better, I think, than could be\ndone by seeming to expect of the individual that he should, in all such\ncases, be a law to himself. There is a possibility of our over-straining\nthe highest principles, by continually appealing to them on very\ntrifling occasions. It is far better, here, to apply the system of the\nlaw; to require obedience to rules, as a matter of discipline; to visit\nthe breach of them by moderate punishment, not given in anger, not at\nall inconsistent with general confidence and regard, but gently\nreminding us of that truth which we may never dare wholly to\nforget,--that punishment will exist eternally so long as there is evil,\nand that the only way of remaining for ever entirely strangers to it, is\nby adhering for ever and entirely to good.\n\nThis applies to every one amongst us; and is the reason why rules,\ndiscipline, and punishments, however much they may be, and are, kept in\nthe background for such, as have become almost wholly dead to them, must\nyet continue in existence, because none are, or can be, dead to them\naltogether. But now, suppose that we have a nature to deal with, which,\ncannot answer to a system of kindness, but abuses it; which, when\npunishment is kept at a distance, rejoices, as thinking that it may\nfollow evil safely; a nature not to be touched by the love of God or\nman, not to be guided by any perception of its own as to what is right\nand true. Is the law dead really to such as these? or should it be so?\nIs punishment a degradation to a nature which, is so self-degraded as to\nbe incapable of being moved by anything better? For this is the real\ndegradation which we should avoid; not the fear of punishment, which is\nnot at all degrading, but the being insensible to the love of Christ and\nof goodness; and so being capable of receiving no other motive than the\nfear of punishment alone. With such natures, to withhold punishment,\nwould be indeed to make Christ the minister of sin; to make mercy, that\nis, lead to evil, and not to good. For them, the law never is dead, and\nnever will be. Here, of course, in this first life, as I have called it,\npunishment indeed goes but a little way: it is very easy for a hardened\nnature to defy all that could be laid upon it here in the way of actual\ncompulsion. Our only course is to cut short the time of trial, when we\nfind a nature in whom that trial cannot end in good. Still there may be\nthose in whom this life here, like their greater life which shall last\nfor ever, will have far more to do with punishment than with kindness;\nthey will be living all their time under the law. Continue this to our\nsecond life, and the law then will be no less alive, and they will never\nbe dead to it, nor will it be ever dead to them. And however a hardened\nnature may well despise the punishments of its first life,--punishments,\nwhose whole object is correction, and not retribution,--yet, where is\nthe nature so hard as to endure, in its relations with God, to feel more\nof his punishment than of his mercy; to know him for ever as a God of\njudgment, and not as a Father of love?\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nST. LUKE xxi. 36.\n\n_Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy\nto escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before\nthe Son of Man_.\n\n\nThis might be a text for a history of the Christian Church, from its\nfoundation to this hour, or to the latest hour of the world's existence.\nWe might observe how it Lad fulfilled its Lord's command; with what\nsteadiness it had gone forward on its course, with the constant hope of\nmeeting Him once again in glory. We might see how it had escaped all\nthese things that were to come to pass: tracing its course amidst the\nmanifold revolutions of the world, inward and outward. In the few words,\n\"all these things that shall come to pass,\" are contained all the events\nof the last eighteen hundred years: indistinct and unknown to us, as\nlong as they are thus folded up together; but capable of being unrolled\nbefore our eyes in a long order, in which should be displayed all the\noutward changes of nations, the spread of discovery, the vicissitudes of\nconquest; and yet more, the inward changes of men's minds, the various\nschools of philosophy, the successive forms of public opinion, the\ninfluences of various races, all the manifold elements by which the\nmoral character of the Christian world has been affected. We might\nobserve how the Church had escaped all these things, or to what degree\nit had received from any of them good or evil. And then, stopping at\nthe point at which it has actually arrived, we might consider how far it\ndeserves the character of that Church, \"without spot, or wrinkle, or any\nsuch thing,\" which should be presented before the Son of Man at his\ncoming again.\n\nThis would be a great subject; and one, if worthily executed, full of\nthe deepest instruction to us all. But our Lord's words may also be made\nthe text for a history or inquiry of another sort, far less\ncomprehensive in time and space, far less grand, far less interesting to\nthe understanding; yet, on the other hand, capable of being wrought out\nfar more completely, and far more interesting to the spiritual and\neternal welfare of each of us. They may be made the text for an inquiry\ninto the course hitherto held, not by the Church as a body, but by each\nof us individual members of it; an inquiry how far we, each of us, have\nwatched and prayed always, that we might be accounted worthy to escape\nall the things which should come to pass, and to stand before the Son of\nMan. And, in this view of the words, the expression \"all these things\nwhich shall come to pass\" has reference no longer to great political\nrevolutions, nor to schools of philosophy, nor to prominent points of\nnational character; but to those humbler events, to those lesser\nchanges, outward and inward, through which we each, pass between our\ncradle and our grave. How have we escaped these, or turned them to good\naccount? Have earthly things so ministered to our eternal welfare, that\nif we were each one of us, by a stroke from heaven, cut off at that very\npoint in our course to which we have severally attained this day, we\nshould be accounted worthy to stand before the Son of Man?\n\nHere is, indeed, a very humble history for us each to study; yet what\nother history can concern us so nearly? And as, in the history of the\nworld, experience in part supplies the place of prophecy, and the fate\nof one nation is in a manner a mirror to another, so in our individual\nhistory, the experience of the old is a lesson to the middle-aged, and\nthat of the middle-aged a lesson to the young. If you wish to know what\nare the things which shall come to pass with respect to you, we can draw\naside the veil from your coming life, because what you will be is no\nother than what we are. If we would go onwards, in like manner, and ask\nwhat are the things which shall come to pass with respect to us, our\ncoming life may be seen in the past and present life of the old; for\nwhat we shall be is no other than what they have been, or than what\nthey are.\n\nLet us take, then, the actual moment with, each of us, and suppose that\nour Lord speaks to each of us as he did to his first disciples: \"Watch\nand pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these\nthings which shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.\" We\nask, naturally, \"What are the things which shall come to pass?\" and it\nis to this question that I am to try to suggest the answer.\n\nThose arrived at middle age may ask the question, \"What are the things\nwhich shall come to pass to us?\" Now, setting aside extraordinary\naccidents, on which we cannot reckon, and the answer would, I think, be\nsomething of this sort: There will not come to pass, it is likely, any\ngreat change in our condition or employment in life. In middle age our\ncalling, with all the duties which it involves, must generally be fixed\nfor each of us. Our particular kind of trial will not, it is probable,\nbe much altered. We must not, as in youth, fancy that, although our\nactual occupation does not suit us, although its temptations are often\ntoo strong for us, yet a change may take place to another line of duty,\nand the temptations in that new line may be less formidable. In middle\nage it will not do to indulge such fond hopes as these. On the contrary,\nour hope must lie, not in escape, but in victory. If our temptations\npress us hard, we cannot expect to have them exchanged for others less\npowerful: they will remain with us, and we must overcome them, or\nperish. Have we tastes not fully reconciled to our calling,--faculties\nwhich seem not to have found their proper field? We must seek our remedy\nnot from without, humanly speaking, but from within: we must discipline\nourselves; we must teach our tastes to cling gracefully around that duty\nto which else they must be helplessly fastened. If any faculties appear\nnot to have found their proper field, we must think that God has, for\ncertain wise reasons, judged it best for us that they should not be\nexercised; and we must be content to render him the service of others.\nIn this respect, then, the immediate prospect for middle age is not so\nmuch change as steadfastness. Fortune will not suit herself to our\nwishes: we must learn to suit our wishes to her.\n\nBut go on a little farther, and what are the things which must come to\npass then? A new and most solemn interest arising to us in the entrance\nof our children into active life. Hitherto they have lived under our\ncare, and our duty to them was simple; but now there comes the choice of\na profession, the watching and guiding them, as well as we can, at this\ncritical moment of their course. What cares await us here; and yet what\nneed of avoiding over care! What a trial for us, how we value our\nchildren's worldly interests when compared with their eternal--whether\nwe prefer for them the path which may lead most readily to worldly\nwealth and honour, or that in, which they may best and safest follow\nChrist! This is a danger which will come to pass to us ere long: do we\nwatch and pray that we may be delivered from it?\n\nThe interest of life, which had, perhaps, something begun to fade for\nourselves, will revive with vigour at this period in behalf of our\nchildren; but after this it will go on steadily ebbing. What life can\noffer we have tasted for ourselves; we have seen it tasted, or in the\nway to be tasted, by them. The harvest is gathered, and the symptoms of\nthe fall appear. Is it that some faculty becomes a little impaired, some\ntaste a little dulled; or is it that the friends and companions of our\nlife are beginning to drop away from us? Long since, those whom we loved\nof the generation before us have been gathered to the grave; now those\nof our own generation are falling fast also--brothers, sisters, friends\nof our early youth, a wife, a husband. We are surrounded by a younger\ngeneration, to whom the half of our lives, with all their recollections\nand sympathies, are a thing unknown. Impatience, weariness, a clinging\nto the past, a vain wish to prolong it in an earthly future,--these are\nthe things which shall befal us then: and they will befal us too surely,\nand too irresistibly, unless, by earlier watchfulness and prayer, we may\nhave been enabled to avoid them. For vain will it be, with faculties at\nonce weakened by the decay of nature and perverted by long habits of\nworldliness, to essay, for the first time, to force our way into the\nkingdom of heaven. Old age is not the season for contest and victory;\nnor shall we then be so able to escape unharmed from the temptations of\nlife as to stand before the Son of Man.\n\nThese are the things which will come to pass for us and for you. But for\nyou there is much more to come, which to us is not future now, but past\nor present. With you, for a time, it will be all a course forwards and\nupwards. From the preparation for life, you will come to the reality;\nfrom a state of less importance, you will be passing on to one of\ngreater. Your temptations, whatever they may be now, will not certainly\nbecome weaker. As outward restraint is more and more taken off from you,\nso your need of inward restraint will be greater. Will those who are\nextravagant now on a small scale, be less extravagant on a large scale?\nWill those who are selfish now, become less selfish amidst a wider field\nof enjoyment? Will those who know not or care not for Christ, while yet,\nas it were, standing quietly on the shore, be led to think of him more\namidst the excitement of the first setting sail, amidst the interest of\nthe first newly-seen country?\n\nYou know not yet, nor can know, the immense importance of that period of\nlife on which many of you are entering, or have just entered. You are\ncoming, or come, to what may be called the second beginning of life: to\nwhich, in the common course of things, there will succeed no third.\nIgnorance, absence of temptation, the presence of all good impressions,\nconstitute much of the innocence of mere childhood,--so beautiful while\nit lasts, so sure to be soon blighted! It is blighted in the first\nexperience of life, most commonly when a boy first goes to school. Then\nhis mere innocence, which indeed he may be said to have worn rather\ninstinctively than by choice, becomes grievously polluted. Then come the\nhardness, the coarseness, the intense selfishness; sometimes, too, the\nfalsehood, the cruelty, the folly of the boy: then comes that period, so\ntrying to the faith of parents, when all their early care seems blasted;\nwhen the vineyard, which they had fenced so tenderly, seems all\ndespoiled and trodden under foot. It is indeed a discouraging season,\nthe exact image of the ungenial springs of our natural year. But after\nthis there comes, as it were, a second beginning of life, when principle\ntakes the place of innocence. There is a time,--many of you must have\narrived at it,--when thought and inquiry awaken; when, out of the mere\nchaos of boyhood, the elements of the future character of the man begin\nto appear. Blessed are they for whom the confusion and disarray of their\nboyish life is quickened into a true life by the moving of the Spirit of\nGod! Blessed are they for whom the beginnings of thought and inquiry are\nthe beginnings also of faith and love; when the new character receives,\nas it is forming, the Christian seed, and the man is also the Christian.\nAnd, then, this second beginning of life, resting on faith and conscious\nprinciple, and not on mere passive innocence, stands sure for the middle\nand the end: those who so watch and pray as to escape out of this\ncritical period, not merely unharmed, but, as it were, set clearly on\ntheir way to heaven, will, with God's grace, escape out of the things\nwhich shall befal them afterwards, till they shall stand before the\nSon of Man.\n\nBut the word is, \"Watch and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy\nto escape.\" We see the time with many of you come, or immediately\ncoming; out of your present state _a_ character will certainly be\nformed; as surely as the innocence of childhood has perished, so surely\nwill the carelessness of boyhood perish too. _A_ character will be\nformed, whether you watch and pray, or whether you do neither; but the\ngreat point is what this character may be. If you do not watch the\nprocess, it will surely be the character of death eternal. Thought and\ninquiry will satisfy themselves very readily with an answer as far as\nregards spiritual things: their whole vigour will be devoted to the\nthings of this world, to science or to business, or to public matters,\nall alike hardening rather than softening to the mind, if its thoughts\ndo not go to something higher and deeper still. And as years pass on, we\nmay think on these our favourite or professional subjects more and more\nearnestly; our views on them may be clearer and sounder, but there comes\nagain nothing like the first free burst of thought in youth; the\nintellect in later life, if its tone was not rightly taken earlier,\nbecomes narrowed in proportion to its greater vigour; one thing it sees\nclearly, but it is blind to all beside. It is in youth that the after\ntone of the mind is happily formed, when that natural burst of thought\nis sanctified and quickened by God's Spirit, and we set up within us to\nlove and adore, all our days, the one image of the truth of God, our\nSaviour Jesus. Then, whatever else may befal us afterwards, it rarely\nhappens that our faith will fail; his image, implanted in us, preserves\nus amid every change; we are counted worthy to escape all the things\nwhich may come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XII\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPROVERBS i. 28.\n\n_Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me\nearly, but they shall not find me_.\n\n\nChrist's gospel gives out the forgiveness of sins; and as this is its\nvery essence, so also in what we read connected with Christ's gospel,\nthe tone of encouragement, of mercy, of loving-kindness to sinners, is\never predominant. What was needed at the beginning of the gospel is no\nless needed now; we cannot spare one jot or one tittle of this gracious\nlanguage; now, as ever, the free grace, that most seems to be without\nthe law, does most surely establish the law. But yet there is another\nlanguage, which is to be found alike in the Old Testament and in the\nNew; a language not indeed so common as the language of mercy, but yet\nrepeated many times; a language which we also need as fully as it was\never needed, and of whose severity we can no more spare one tittle than\nwe can spare anything of the comfort of the other. And yet this language\nhas not, I think, been enforced so often as it should have been. Men\nhave rather shrunk from it, and seemed afraid of it; they have connected\nit sometimes with certain foolish and presumptuous questions, which we,\nindeed, do well to turn from; but they have not seen, that with such it\nhas no natural connexion, but belongs to a certain fact in the\nconstitution of our nature, and is most highly moral and practical.\n\nThe language to which. I allude is expressed, amongst other passages,\nby the words of the text. They speak of men's calling upon God, and of\nhis refusing to hear them; of men's seeking God, and not finding him.\nRemember, at the same time, our Lord's words, \"Ask, and ye shall\nreceive; seek, and ye shall find.\" I purposely put together these\nopposite passages, because the full character of God's Revelation is\nthus seen more clearly. Do we doubt that our Lord's words are true, and\ndo we not prize them as some of the most precious which he has left us?\nWe do well to do so; but shall we doubt any more the truth of the words\nof the text; and shall we not consider them as a warning no less needful\nthan the comfort in the other case? Indeed, as true as it is, that, if\nwe seek God, we shall find him; so true is it that we may seek him, and\nyet not find him.\n\nNow, then, how to explain this seeming contradiction? We can see at\nonce, that these things are not said of the same persons, or rather of\nthe same characters at the same time. They are said of the same persons:\nthat is, there is no one here assembled who is not concerned with both,\nand to whom both may not be applicable. Only they are not and cannot be\nboth applicable to the same person at the very same time. If God will be\nfound by us, at any given moment, on our seeking him, it is impossible\nthat, at that same moment, he should also not be found. Thus far is\nplain to every one.\n\nAnd now, is it true of us, at this present time, that God will be found\nby us if we seek him, or that he will not be found? If we say that he\nwill be found, then the words of the text are not applicable to us at\npresent, although at some future time they may be; and then we have that\nwell-known difficulty to encounter, to attempt to draw the mind's\nattention to a future and only contingent evil. If we say that he will\nnot be found, then of what avail can it be to say any word more? Why sit\nwe in this place, to preach, or to listen to preaching, if God, after\nall, will not be found? Or, again, should we say that there are some by\nwhom he will not be found, then who are they that are thus horribly\nmarked out from among their brethren? Can we dare to conceive of any one\namongst us that he is such an one; that there are some, nay, that there\nis any one amongst us, to whom it is the same thing whether he will\nhear, or whether he will forbear; who may close his ears as safely as\nopen them, because God has turned his face from him for ever? It were\nindeed horrible to suppose that any one of us were in such a state; and\nhappily it is a thought of horror which the truth may allow us to repel.\n\nBut what, if I were to say, that now, at this very moment, the words of\nthe text are both applicable to us, and not applicable? Is this a\ncontradiction, and therefore impossible? Or is it but a seeming\ncontradiction only, and not only possible, but true? Let us see how the\ncase appears to be.\n\nWe should allow, I suppose, that the words of the text were at no time\nin any man's earthly life so true as they will be at the day of\njudgment. The hardest heart, the most obdurate in sin, the most closed\nagainst all repentance, is yet more within the reach of grace, we should\nimagine, whilst he is alive and in health, than he will be at the day of\nthe resurrection. We can admit, then, that the words of the text may be\ntrue, in a greater or less degree; that they will be more entirely true\nat the last day, than at any earlier period, but yet that they may be\nsubstantially true, true almost beyond exception, in the life that now\nis. Now carry this same principle a little farther, and we come to our\nvery own case. The words of the text will be more true at the day of\njudgment, than they ever are on earth; and yet on earth they are often\ntrue substantially and practically. And even so, they may be more true\nto each of us a few years hence, than they are at this moment; and yet,\nin a certain degree, they may be true at this moment; true, not\nabsolutely and entirely, but partially; so true as to give a most solemn\nearnest, if we are not warned in time, of their more entire truth\nhereafter,--first, in this earthly life; then most perfectly of all,\nwhen we shall arise at the last day.\n\nIt may be, then, that the words of the text, although not applicable to\nus in their full and most fatal sense, may yet be applicable to us in a\ncertain degree: the evil which they speak of may be, not wholly future\nand contingent, and a thing to be feared, but present in part, actual,\nand a matter of experience. This is not contradiction: it is not\nimpossible; it _may be_ our case. Let us see whether it really is so,\nthat is, whether it is in any degree true of us, that when we call upon\nGod he will not answer; that when we seek him, we shall in any manner be\nunable to find him.\n\nIt is manifest that, in proportion as Christ's words \"Seek, and ye shall\nfind,\" are true to any man, so are the words of the text less true to\nhim; and in proportion as Christ's words are less true to any one, so\nare the words of the text more true to him. Now, is Christ's promise,\n\"Seek, and ye shall find,\" equally true to all of us? Conceive of\none--the thing is rare, but not impossible,--of one who had been so kept\nfrom evil, and so happily led forward in good, that when arrived at\nboyhood, his soul had scarcely more stain upon it than when it was first\nfully cleansed, and forgiven, in baptism! Conceive him speaking truth,\nwithout any effort, on all occasions; not greedy, not proud, not\nviolent, not selfish, not feeling conscious that he was living a life\nof sin, and therefore glad to come to God, rather than shrinking away\nfrom him! Conceive how completely to such an one would Christ's words be\nfulfilled, \"Seek, and ye shall find!\" When would his prayers be\nunblessed or unfruitful? When would he turn his thoughts to God without\nfeeling pleasure in doing so; without a lively consciousness of God's\nlove to him; without an assured sense of the reality of things not seen,\nof redemption and grace and glory? Would not the communion with God,\nenjoyed by one so untainted, come up to the full measure of those high\npromises, \"It shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer,\nand while they are yet speaking, I will hear?\" Would it not be plain,\nthat God was as truly found, by such a person, as he was sought in\nsincerity and earnestness?\n\nBut now, take the most of us: suppose us not to have been kept carefully\nfrom evil, nor led on steadily in good; suppose us to have reached\nboyhood with bad dispositions, ready for the first temptation, with\nhabits of good uncultivated; suppose us to have no great horror of a\nlie, when it can serve our turn; with much love of pleasure, and little\nlove of our duty; with much, selfishness, and little or no thought of\nGod: suppose such an one, so sadly altered from a state of baptismal\npurity, to be saying his prayers as he had been taught to say them, and\nsaying them sometimes with a thought of their meaning and a wish that\nGod would hear them. But does God hear them? I ask of your own\nconsciences, whether you have had any sense that he has heard you?\nwhether death and judgment, Christ and Christ's service, have become\nmore real to you after such prayers? If not, then is it not manifest,\nthat you have sought God, and have not found him; that you have called\nupon him and he has not heard? You know by experience, that you are not\nas those true children who are ever with him, who listen to catch the\nlightest whisper of his Spirit, for whom, he, too, vouchsafes to bless\nthe faintest breathing of their prayer.\n\nOr, again, in trying to turn from evil to good, have you ever found your\nresolutions give way, the ground which you had gained slide from under\nyour feet, till you fell back again to what you were at the beginning?\nHas this ever happened to us? If it has, then in that case, also, we\nsought God, but failed to find him; the victory was not yours, but the\nenemy's; the Spirit of Christ did not help you so as to conquer.\n\nTake another case yet again. Has it ever happened to any of you, to have\ndone a mischief to yourselves which you could not undo? It need not be\none of the very highest kind; but has it ever happened, that, by\nneglect, you have lost ground in the society in which you are placed,\nwhich you cannot recover; that your contemporaries have gained an\nadvance upon you, while you have not time left to overtake them? Does it\never happen that, from neglecting some particular element of learning in\nits proper season, and other things claiming your attention afterwards,\nyou go on with a disadvantage, which you would fain remove, but cannot?\nDoes it, in short, ever happen to any, that his complete success here is\nbecome impossible; that whatever prospects of another kind may be open\nto him elsewhere, yet that he cannot now be numbered amongst those who\nhave turned the particular advantages here afforded them to that end\nwhich they might and ought to have done?\n\nTo whomsoever this has happened, the truth of the words of the text is\nmatter of experience, not in their full and most dreadful extent, but\nyet quite enough to prove that they are true; and that just as he now\nfeels them in part, so, if he continues to be what he is, he will one\nday feel them wholly. He feels that it is possible to seek God, and not\nto find him; he has learnt by experience that neglected good, or\ncommitted evil, may be beyond the power of after-regret to undo. It is\ntrue, that as yet, to him, other prospects may be open: prospects which,\nprobably, he may deem no less fair than those which he has forfeited.\nThis may be so; but the point to observe is, that one prospect was lost\nso irretrievably by his own fault, that afterwards, when he wished to\nregain it, he could not. Now God gives him other prospects, which he may\nrealize: but as he forfeited his first prospect beyond recovery, so he\nmay do also with his last: and though ill-success at school may be made\nup by success in another sphere, yet what is to make up for ill-success\nin the great business of life, when that, too, has been forfeited as\nirrecoverably; when his last chance is gone as hopelessly as his first?\n\nNow, surely there is in all this an intelligible lesson. I am not at all\nexaggerating the importance of the particular prospect forfeited here:\nbut I am pressing upon you, that this prospect may be, and often is,\nforfeited irrecoverably; that when you wish to regain it, it is too\nlate, and you cannot. And I press this, because it is a true type of the\nwhole of human life; because it is just as possible to forfeit salvation\nirrecoverably, as to forfeit that earthly good which is the prize of\nwell-doing here, with this infinite difference, that the last forfeit is\nnot only irretrievable, but fatal; it can no more be made up for, than\nit can be regained. Here, then, your present condition is a type of the\ncomplete truth of the text: but there are other points, to which I\nalluded before, in which it is more than a type; it is the very truth\nitself, although, happily, only in an imperfect measure. That unanswered\nprayer, of which I spoke, those broken resolutions,--are they not\nactually a calling on God, without his hearing us; a seeking him,\nwithout finding him? We remember who it was that could say with truth to\nhis Father, \"I know that thou nearest me always.\" We know what it is\nthat hinders God from hearing us always; because we are not thoroughly\none in his Son Christ Jesus. But this unanswered prayer is not properly\nthe State of Christ's redeemed: it is an enemy that hath brought us to\nthis; the same enemy who will, in time, make all our prayers to be\nunanswered, as some are now; who will cause God, not only to be slow to\nlisten, but to refuse to listen for ever. Now we are not heard at once,\nwe must repeat our prayers, with more and more earnestness, that God, at\nlast, may hear, and may bless us. But if, instead of repeating them the\nmore, we do the very contrary, and repeat them the less; if, because we\nhave no comfort, and no seeming good from them, we give them up\naltogether; then the time will surely come when all prayer will be but\nthe hopeless prayer of Esau, because it will be only the prayer of fear;\nbecause it will be only the dread of destruction that will, or can, move\nus:--the love of good will have gone beyond recall. Such prayer does but\nask for pardon without repentance; and this never is, or can\nbe, granted.\n\nSo then, in conclusion, that very feeling of coldness, and unwillingness\nto pray, because we have often prayed in vain, is surely working in us\nthat perfect death, which is the full truth of the words of the text. Of\nall of us, those who the least like to pray, who have prayed with the\nleast benefit, have the most need to pray again. If they have sought\nGod, without finding him, let them take heed that this be not their case\nfor ever; that the truth, of which the seed is even now in them, may not\nbe ripened to their everlasting destruction, when all their seeking, and\nall their prayer, will be as rejected by God, as, in part, it has\nbeen already.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMARK xii. 34.\n\n_Thou art not far from the kingdom of God_.\n\n\nWhoever has gone up any hill of more than common height, may remember\nthe very different impression which the self-same point, whether bush,\nor stone, or cliff, has made upon him as he viewed it from below and\nfrom above. In going up it seemed so high, that we fancied, if we were\nonce arrived at it, we should be at the summit of our ascent; while,\nwhen we had got beyond it, and looked down upon it, it seemed almost\nsunk to the level of the common plain; and we wondered that it could\never have appeared high to us.\n\nWhat happens with any natural object according to the different points\nfrom which we view it, happens also to any particular stage of\nadvancement in our moral characters. There is a goodness which appears\nvery exalted or very ordinary, according as it is much above or much\nbelow our own level. And this is the case with the expression of our\nLord in the text, \"Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.\" Does this\nseem a great thing or a little thing to be said to us? Does it give us a\nnotion of a height which we should think it happiness to have readied;\nor of a state so little advanced, that it would be misery to be forced\nto go back to it? For, according as it seems to us the one or the other,\nso we may judge of the greater or less progress which we have made in\nascending the holy mountain of our God.\n\nBut while I say this, it is necessary to distinguish between two several\nsenses, in which we may be said to be near to the kingdom of God, or\nactually in it. These two are in respect of knowledge, and in respect of\nfeeling and practice. And our Lord's words seem to refer particularly to\nknowledge. The scribe to whom he used them, had expressed so just a\nsense of the true way of pleasing God, had so risen above the common\nfalse notions of his age and country, that his understanding seemed to\nbe ripe for the truths of that kingdom of God, which was to make the\nworship of God to consist in spirit and in truth. Now as far as the\nknowledge of the kingdom of God is concerned, although, undoubtedly,\nthere are many amongst us who are deficient in it, yet it is true also,\nthat a great many of us are in possession of it; we are familiar enough\nwith the truths of the kingdom of God, and our understandings fully\napprove them. But we may be near to or far from the kingdom of God, in\nrespect also of feeling and practice; and this is the great matter that\nconcerns us. It is here, then, that we should ask ourselves what we\nthink of our Lord's words in the text; and whether he to whom they were\nspoken appears to us an object of envy or of compassion; one whom we\nenvy for having advanced so far, or pity for not being advanced further.\n\n\"Not far from the kingdom of God.\" Again, if we take the words Kingdom\nof God in their highest sense, then the expression contains all that we\ncould desire to have said of us in this life; hope itself on this side\nof the grave can go no higher. For as, in this sense, the kingdom of God\ncannot be actually entered before our death; so the best thing that can\nbe said of us here, is, that we are not far from it; but we are in the\nland of Beulah, so happily imagined in the Pilgrim's Progress; all of\nour pilgrimage completed, save the last act of crossing the river; with\nthe city of God full in sight, and with hearts ready to enter into it.\nIn this sense, even St. Paul himself, when he wrote his last epistle\nfrom Rome, could say no more, could hope for, could desire no more, than\nto be not far from the kingdom of God.\n\nYet again, take the words \"Kingdom of God\" in their lowest sense, and\nthen it is woe to us all, if the expression in the text is all that can\nbe said of us; if, in this sense, we are only not far from the kingdom\nof God. For take the kingdom of God as God's visible Church, and then,\nif we are not Christians at all, but only not far from becoming so; if\nwe have not received Christ, but are not far from receiving him; this is\na state so imperfect, that he who is in it, has not yet reached to the\nbeginning of his Christian course; and we need not say how far he must\nbe from its end, if he have not yet come as far as its beginning.\n\nThus, in one sense, the words express something so high that nothing can\nbe higher; in another, something so low, that, to us, nothing can be\nlower. We have yet to seek that sense, in which they may afford us a\nuseful criterion of our own several states, by appearing high, perhaps,\nto some of us, and to others low.\n\nThe sense which we seek is given by our Lord, when he declares that the\nkingdom of God is within us; or by St. Paul, when he tells us, that it\nis righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. And now it is no\nmore a thing which we cannot yet have reached, or, on the other hand,\nwhich we all have reached: there is now a great difference in us, some\nare far from it, some are near it, and some are in it; and thus it is,\nthat they who are near it, seem in it to those who are afar off, and\nfar from it to those who are in it.\n\nNow, first, do they seem far from it? Then, indeed, ours is a happy\nstate, as many of us as can truly feel that they live so constantly in\nholy and heavenly tempers, in such lively faith and love, so tasting all\nthe blessings of God's kingdom, its peace, and its hope, and its joy,\nthat they cannot bear to think of that time, when these blessings were\nnot enjoyed except in prospect; when they rather desired to have faith\nand love, than could be said actually to have them; when their tempers\nwere not holy and heavenly, although they were fully alive to the\nexcellence of their being so, and had seen them already cleansed from\nthe opposites of such a state, from ill-nature, and passion, and pride.\n\nIf any such there be, in whom good resolutions have long since ripened\ninto good actions, and the continued good actions have now led to\nconfirmed good habits, how miserable will they think it to be only \"not\nfar from the kingdom of God!\" How ill could they bear to go over again\nthe struggle which used to accompany every action, when it was done in\ndefiance of habits of evil; or to be called back to that condition when\nresolutions for good were formed over and over again, because they were\nso often broken, but had as yet rarely led to any solid fruit! How\nthankful will they be to have escaped from that season when they were\nseeking, but had not yet found; when they were asking of God, but had\nnot yet received; when they were knocking, but the door had not yet been\nopened! They were then, indeed, not far from the kingdom of God, but\nthey were still without its walls; they were still strangers, and not\ncitizens. It had held out to them a refuge, and they had fled to it as\nsuppliants to the sanctuary; but they had not yet had the word of peace\nspoken, to bid them no more kneel without, as suppliants, but to enter\nand go in and out freely; for that all things were theirs, because they\nwere Christ's.\n\nI have dwelt purposely somewhat the longer upon this, because the more\nthat we can feel the truth of this picture, the more that we can put\nourselves into the position of those who are within the kingdom of God,\nand who, living in the light of it, look back with pity upon those who\nare only kneeling without its gates,--the more strongly we shall feel\nwhat must be our condition, if those who are without its gates appear to\nus to be objects of envy rather than pity, because they are so near to\nthat place from which we feel ourselves to be so distant. Or, to speak\nwithout a figure, if we could but understand how persons advanced in\ngoodness would shrink from the thought of being now only resolving to be\ngood, then we shall perceive how very evil must be our condition, if\nthis very resolving to be good seems to us to be an advance so\ndesirable; if we are so far from being good actually, that the very\nsetting ourselves in earnest to seek for good strikes us as a point of\nabsolute proficiency in comparison of our present degradation.\n\nYet is not this the case with many of us? Do we not consider it a great\npoint gained, if we can be brought to think seriously, to pray in\nearnest, to read the Bible, to begin to look to our own ways and lives?\nWe feel it for ourselves, and others also feel it for us: it is natural,\nit is unavoidable, that we feel great joy, that we think a great deal is\ndone, if we see any of you, after leading a life of manifest\ncarelessness, and therefore of manifest sin, beginning to take more\npains with himself, and so becoming what is called somewhat more steady\nand more serious. I know that the impression is apt to be too strong\nupon us: we are but too apt to boast for him who putteth on his armour\nas for him who putteth it off; because he who putteth on his armour at\nleast shows that he is preparing for the battle, which so many never do\nat all. We observe some of these signs of seriousness: we see perhaps,\nthat a person begins to attend at the Communion; that he pays more\nattention to his ordinary duties; that he becomes more regular. We see\nthis, and we are not only thankful for it,--this we ought to be,--but we\nsatisfy ourselves too readily that all is done: we reckon a person,\nsomewhat too hastily, to be already belonging to the kingdom of God,\nbecause we have seen him turning towards it. Then, if he afterwards does\nnot appear to be entered into it; if we see that he is not what we\nexpected, that he is no longer serious, no longer attentive to his\ncommon duties, we are overmuch disappointed; and, perhaps are tempted\ntoo completely to despair for him. Is it not that we confounded together\nthe beginning and the end; the being good, and the trying to become so:\nthe resolution with the act; the act with the habit? Did we not forget\nthat he is not at once out of danger who begins to mend: that the first\nsoftening of the dry burning skin, the first abating of the hard quick\npulse, is far removed from the coolness, and steadiness, and even vigour\nof health restored, or never interrupted?\n\nBut what made us forget truths so obvious? What made us confound things\nso different that the most ignorant ought to be able to distinguish\nthem? Cannot we tell why it is? Is it not because there are so many in\nwhom we cannot see even as good signs as these,--of whom we cannot but\nfeel that it would be a great advance for them, a matter of earnest\nthankfulness, if we could only see that they were not far from the\nkingdom of God,--nay, even that their steps were tending thither? Let us\nlook ever so earnestly, let us watch ever so carefully, let us hope\never so charitably, we cannot see, we can scarcely fancy that we see,\neven the desire to turn to God. We do not see gross wickedness; it is\nwell; we see much that is amiable; that is well also: but the desire to\nturn to God, the tending of the steps towards the kingdom of\nheaven,--that we cannot see. But this is a thing, it may be said, that\nman cannot see: it may exist, although we cannot perceive it. Oh, that\nit might and may be so! Yet, surely, as out of the abundance of the\nheart the mouth speaketh, so a principle so mighty as the desire of\nturning to God cannot leave itself without a witness: some symptoms must\nbe shown to those who are eagerly watching for them; some ground for\nhope must be afforded where hope is so ready to kindle. If no sign of\nlife appears, can the life indeed be stirring? And if the life be not\nstirring; if the disorder is going on in so many cases, raging, with no\nsymptom of abatement; is it not natural, that when we do see such\nsymptoms, we should rejoice even with over-measure, that we should\nforget how much is yet to be done, when we see that something has\nbeen done.\n\nTo such persons, it would be an enviable state, to be not far from the\nkingdom of God. But what, then, must be their state actually? A hopeful\none, according to many standards of judgment; a state that promises\nwell, it may be, for a healthy and prosperous life, with many friends,\nperhaps with much distinction. We know that all this prospect may be\nblighted; still it exists at present;--the healthy constitution, the\neasy fortune, the cheerful and good-humoured temper, the quickness and\npower of understanding; all these, no doubt, are hopeful signs for a\nperiod of forty, or fifty, or perhaps sixty years to come. But what is\nto come then? what is the prospect for the next period, not of fifty, or\nsixty, not of a hundred, not of a thousand, years; not of any number\nthat can be numbered, but of time everlasting? Is their actual state one\nof hopeful promise for this period, for this life which no death shall\nterminate? Nay, is it a state of any promise at all, of any chance at\nall? Suppose, for a moment, one with a crippled body, full of the seeds\nof hereditary disease, poor, friendless, irritable in temper, low in\nunderstanding; suppose such an one just entering upon youth, and ask\nyourselves, for what would you consent that his prospects should be\nyours? What should you think would be your chance of happiness in life,\nif you were beginning in such a condition? Yet, I tell you that poor,\ndiseased, irritable, friendless cripple has a far better prospect of\npassing his fifty, or sixty, years, tolerably, than they who have not\nbegun to turn towards God have of a tolerable eternity. Much more\nwretched is the promise of their life; much more justly should we be\ntempted, concerning them, to breathe that fearful thought, that it were\ngood for them if they had never been born. And now if, as by miracle,\nthat cripple's limbs were to be at once made sound, if the seeds of\ndisease were to vanish, if some large fortune were left him, if his\ntemper sweetened, and his mind became vigorous, should not we be\nexcused, considering what he had been and what he now was, if we, for a\nmoment, forgot the uncertainty of the future; if we thought that a\npromise so changed, was almost equivalent to performance? And may not\nthis same excuse be urged for some over-fondness of confidence for their\nwell-doing whom we see so near to the kingdom of God, when we consider\nhow utter is the misery, how hopeless the condition of those who do not\nappear to have, as yet, stirred one single step towards it?\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMATTHEW xxii. 14.\n\n_For many are called, but few are chosen_.\n\n\nThe truth here expressed is one of the most solemn in the world, and\nwould be one of the most overwhelming to us, if habit had not, in a\nmanner, blunted our painful perception of it. There is contained in it\nmatter of thought more than we could exhaust, and deeper than we could\never fathom. But on this I will not attempt to enter. I will rather take\nthat view of the text which concerns us here; I will see in how many\nsenses it is true, and with what feeling we should regard it.\n\n\"Many are called, but few are chosen.\" The direct application of this\nwas to the parable of those invited to the supper; in which it had been\nrelated, how a great multitude had been invited, but how one among\nthem--and the application as well as the fact in human life, require\nthat this _one_ should be taken only as a specimen of a great\nnumber--had been found unworthy to enjoy the feast prepared for them.\nThey had not on the wedding garment; they had not done their part to fit\nthemselves for the offered blessing: therefore they were called, but not\nchosen. God had willed to do them good, but they would not; and\ntherefore, though he had called them at the beginning, he, in the end,\ncast them out.\n\nWe have to do, then, not with an arbitrary call and an arbitrary choice,\nas if God called many in mockery, meaning to choose out of them only a\nfew, and making his choice independently of any exertion of theirs. The\npicture is very different; it is a gracious call to us all, to come and\nreceive the blessing; it is a reluctant casting out the greatest part of\nus, because we would not try to render ourselves fit for it.\n\nI said, that we would take the words of the text in reference to\nourselves, for here, too, it is true, that many are called, but few are\nchosen. It is a large number of you, which I see before me; and if we\nadd to it all those who, within my memory, have sat in the same places\nbefore you, we shall have a number very considerable indeed. All these\nhave been called; they have been sent here to enjoy the same advantages\nwith each other; and those advantages have been put within their reach.\nThey have entered into a great society which, on the one hand, might\nraise them forward, or, on the other, depress them. There has been a\nsufficient field for emulation: there have been examples and\ninstructions for good; there have been results of credit and of real\nimprovement made attainable to them, which might have lasted all their\nlives long. To this, they have been all, in their turns, called; and out\nof those so called, have all, or nearly all, been chosen? I am not\nspeaking of those, who, I trust, would be a very small number, to whom\nthe trial has failed utterly, who could look back on their stay here\nwith no feelings but those of shame. But would there not be a very large\nnumber, to whom their stay here has been a loss, compared with what it\nmight have been; who have reaped but a very small part of those\nadvantages to which they had been at first called? Are there not too\nmany who must look back on a part, at least, of their time here as\nwasted; on the seeds of bad habits sown, which, if conquered by\nafter-care, yet, for a long time, were injurious to them? Are there not\ntoo many who carry away from here, instead of good notions, to be\nripened and improved, evil notions, to be weeded out and destroyed? Are\nthere not, in short, a great number who, after having had a great\nadvantage put within their reach, and purchased for them by their\nfriends, at a great expense, have made such insufficient use of their\nopportunities, to say nothing stronger, as to make it a question\nafterwards, whether it might not have been better for them had they\nnever come here at all?\n\nThus far I have been speaking of what are called the advantages of this\nplace in our common language. That argument, which Butler has so nobly\nhandled, in one of the greatest works in our language, the resemblance,\nnamely, between the course of things earthly and that of things\nspiritual, is one which we should never fail to notice. We can discern\nthe type, as it were, of the highest truth of our Lord's sayings in the\nexperience of our common life in worldly things. When he tells us,\nspeaking of things spiritual, that \"many are called, but few are\nchosen;\" that \"whoso hath, to him shall be given; but from him that hath\nnot shall be taken away even that which he hath,\"--although the highest\ntruth contained in these words be yet, in part, matter of faith, for we\nhave not yet seen the end of God's dealings with us: yet what we do see,\nthe evident truth of the words, that is, in respect to God's dealings\nwith us in the course of his earthly providence, may reasonably assure\nus of their truth no less in respect to those dealings of God which as\nyet are future. I began, therefore, with reminding you of the truth of\nthe words of the text with regard to worldly advantages; that even here,\non this small scale, the general law holds good; that more things are\nprovided for us than we will consent to use; that, in short, \"many are\ncalled, but few are chosen.\"\n\nBut it were ill done to limit our view to this: we are called to much\nmore than worldly advantages; and what if here, too, we add one more\nexample to confirm our Lord's words, that \"many are called, but few\nchosen?\" Now here, as I said, it is very true that God's choice is as\nyet not a matter of sight or of certainty to us; we cannot yet say of\nourselves, or of any other set of living men, that \"few are chosen.\" But\nthough the full truth is not yet revealed, still, as there is a type of\nit in our worldly experience, so there is also a higher type, an\nearnest, of it in our spiritual experience: there is a sense, and that a\nvery true and a very important one, in which we can say already, say\nnow, actually, in the life that now is; say, even in the early stage of\nit, that some are, and some are not, \"chosen.\"\n\nWe have all been called, in a Christian sense, inasmuch as we have been\nall introduced into Christ's church by Baptism; and a very large\nproportion of us have been called again, many of us not very long since,\nat our Confirmation. We have been thus called to enter into Christ's\nkingdom: we have been called to lead a life of holiness and happiness\nfrom this time forth even for ever. Nothing can be stronger than the\nlanguage in which the Scripture speaks of the nature of our high\ncalling: \"All things,\" says St. Paul to the Corinthians, \"all things are\nyours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, or the world, or life, or\ndeath, or things present, or things to come, all are yours; and ye are\nChrist's, and Christ is God's.\" Now, if this be the prize to which we\nare called, who are they who are also chosen to it? In the first and\nmost complete sense, no doubt, those who have entered into their rest;\nwho are in no more danger, however slight; with whom the struggle is\naltogether past, and the victory securely won. These are entered within\nthe veil, whither we can as yet penetrate only in hope. But hope, in\nits highest degree, differs little from assurance; and even, as we\ndescend lower and lower, still, where hope is clearly predominant, there\nis, if not assurance, yet a great encouragement; and the Scripture,\nwhich delights to carry encouragement to the highest pitch to those who\nare following God, allows of our saying of even these that they are\nGod's chosen. It gives them, as it were, the title beforehand, to make\nthem feel how doubly miserable it must be not only not to obtain it, but\nto forfeit it after it had been already ours. So then, there are senses\nin which we may say that some are chosen now; although, strictly\nspeaking, the term can by us be applied, in its full sense, to those\nonly who are passed beyond the reach of evil.\n\nThose, then, we may call chosen, who, having heard their call, have\nturned to obey it, and have gone on following it. Those we may call\nchosen,--I do not say chosen irrevocably, but chosen now; chosen so that\nwe may be very thankful to God on their behalf, and they thankful for\nthemselves,--who, since their Confirmation, or since a period more\nremote, have kept God before their face, and tried to do His will. Those\nare, in the same way, chosen, who having found in themselves the sin\nwhich did most easily beset them, have struggled with it, and wholly, or\nin a great measure, have overcome it. Thus, they are chosen, who, having\nlived either in the frequent practice of selfish, extravagance, or of\nfalsehood, or of idleness, or of excess in eating and drinking, have\nturned away from these things, and, for Christ's sake, have renounced\nthem. They are chosen, I think, in yet a higher sense, who, having found\ntheir besetting sin to be, not so much any one particular fault, as a\ngeneral ungodly carelessness, a lightness which for ever hindered them\nfrom serving God, have struggled with this most fatal enemy; and, even\nin youth, and health, and happiness, have learnt what it is to be\nsober-minded, what it is to think. Now, such as these have, in a manner,\nentered into their inheritance; they are not merely called, but chosen.\nGod and spiritual things are not mere names to them, they are a reality.\nSuch persons have tasted of the promises; they have known the\npleasure--and what pleasure is comparable to it?--of feeling the bonds\nof evil passion or evil habit unwound from about their spirit; they have\nlearnt what is that glorious liberty of being able to abstain from the\nthings which we condemn, to do the things which we approve. They have\nfelt true sense of power succeed to that of weakness. It is a delightful\nthing, after a long illness, after long helplessness, when our legs have\nbeen unable to support our weight, when our arms could lift nothing, our\nhands grasp nothing, when it was an effort to raise our head from the\npillow, and it tired us even to speak in a whisper,--it is a delightful\nthing to feel every member restored to its proper strength; to find that\nexercise of limb, of voice, of body, which had been so long a pain,\nbecome now a source of perpetual pleasure. This is delightful; it pays\nfor many an hour of previous weakness. But it is infinitely more\ndelightful to feel the change from weakness to strength in our souls; to\nfeel the languor of selfishness changed for the vigour of benevolence;\nto feel thought, hope, faith, love, which before were lying, as it were,\nin helplessness, now bounding in vigorous activity; to find the soul,\nwhich had been so long stretched as upon the sick bed of this earth, now\nable to stand upright, and looking and moving steadily towards heaven.\n\nThese are chosen; and they to whom this description does in no degree\napply, they are not chosen. They are not chosen in any sense, they are\ncalled only. And, now, what is the proportion between the one and the\nother; are there as many chosen as there have been many called? Or do\nChrist's words apply in our case no less than in others; that though\nthey who are called are many, yet they who are chosen are few?\n\nThis I dare not answer; there is a good as well as an evil which is\nunseen to the world at large, unseen even by all but those who watch us\nmost nearly and most narrowly. All we can say is, that there are too\nmany, who we must fear are not chosen; there are too few, of whom we can\nfeel sure that they are. Yet hope is a wiser feeling than its opposite;\nit were as wrong as it would be miserable to abandon it. How gladly\nwould we hope the best things of all those whom we saw this morning at\nChrist's holy table! How gladly would we believe of all such, that they\nwere more than called merely; that they had listened to the call: that\nthey had obeyed it; that they had already gained some Christian\nvictories; that they were, in some sense, not called only, but chosen.\nBut this we may say; that hope which we so long to entertain, that hope\ntoo happy to be at once indulged in, you may authorize us to feel it;\nyou may convert it into confidence. Do you ask how? By going on steadily\nin good, by advancing from good to better, by not letting impressions\nfade with time. Now, with many of you, your confirmation is little more\nthan three months distant; when we next meet at Christ's table, it will\nhave passed by nearly half-a-year. It may be, that, in that added\ninterval, it will have lost much of its force; that, from various\ncauses, evil may have abounded in you more than good; that then shame,\nor a willing surrender of yourselves to carelessness, will keep away\nfrom Christ's Communion, many who have this day joined in it. But, if\nthis were not to be so; if those, whom we have seen with joy this day\ncommunicating with us in the pledges of Christian fellowship, should\ncontinue to do so steadily; if, in the meantime, traits shall appear in\nyou in other things that our hope was well founded; if the hatred of\nevil and the love of good were to be clearly manifest in you; if by\nsigns not to be mistaken by those who watch earnestly for them, we might\nbe assured that your part was taken, that you were striving with us in\nthat service of our common Master, in which we would fain live and die;\nif evil was clearly lessened among us--not laughed at, but discouraged\nand put down; if instead of those turning away, who have now been with\nus at Christ's table, others, who have now turned away, should then be\nadded to the number; then we should say, not doubtingly, that you were\nchosen: that you had tasted of the good things of Christ; that the good\nwork of God was clearly begun in you. We might not, indeed, be without\ncare, either for you or for ourselves: God forbid, that, in that sense,\nany of us should deem that we were chosen, until the grave has put us\nbeyond temptation. But how happy were it to think of you as Christ's\nchosen, in that sense which should be a constant encouragement to us\nall: to think of you as going on towards God; to think of you as living\nto him daily; to think of you as on his side against all his enemies; to\nthink of you as led by his Spirit, as living members of his holy and\nglorious Church,--militant now, in heaven triumphant!\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLUKE xi. 25.\n\n_When he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished_.\n\n\nJOHN v. 42.\n\n_I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you_.\n\n\nThese passages, of which the first is taken from the gospel of this\nmorning's service, the other from the second lesson, differ in words,\nbut their meaning is very nearly the same. The house which was empty,\nswept and garnished, was especially one empty of the love of God.\nWhatever evil there may not have been in it; whatever good there may\nhave been in those of whom Christ spoke in the second passage: yet it\nand they agreed in this; one thing they had not, which alone was worth,\nall the rest besides; they had not the love of God.\n\nAnd so it is still; many are the faults which we have not; many are the\ngood qualities which we have; but the life is wanting. What is so rare\nas to find one who is not indifferent to God? What so rare, even rarer\nthan the other, as to find one who actually loves him?\n\nTherefore it is that those who go in at the broad gate of destruction\nare many, and those who go in at the narrow gate of life are few. For\ndestruction and life are but other terms for indifference to God on the\none hand, and love to him on the other. All who are indifferent to him,\ndie; a painless death of mere extinction, if, like the brute creation,\nthey have never been made capable of loving him; or a living death of\nperpetual misery, if, like evil spirits and evil men, they might have\nloved him and would not. And so all who love him, live a life, from\nfirst to last, without sin and sorrow, if, like the holy angels, they\nhave loved him always; a life partaking at first of death, but\nbrightening more and more unto the perfect day, if, like Christians,\nthey were born in sin, but had been redeemed and sanctified to\nrighteousness.\n\nWhoever has watched human character, whether in the young or the old,\nmust be well aware of the truth of this: he will know that the value of\nany character is in proportion to the existence or to the absence of\nthis feeling, or rather, I should say, this principle. An exception may,\nperhaps, be made for a small, a very small number of fanatics; an\napparent exception likewise exists in the case of many who seem to be\nreligious, but who really are not so. The few exceptions of the former\ncase are so very few, that we need not now stop to consider them, nor to\ninquire how far even these would be exceptions if we could read the\nheart as God reads it. The seeming exceptions being cases either of\nhypocrisy, or of very common self-deceit, we need not regard either; for\nthey are, of course, no real objection to the truth of the general\nstatement. It remains true, then, generally, that the value of any\ncharacter is in proportion to the existence, or to the absence, in it of\nthe love of God.\n\nBut is there not another exception to be made for the case of children,\nand of very young persons? Are they capable of loving God? and are not\ntheir earthly relations, their parents especially, put to them, as it\nwere, in the place of God, as objects of trust, of love, of honour, of\nobedience, till their minds can open to comprehend the love of their\nFather who is in heaven? And does not the Scripture itself, in the few\nplaces in which it seems directly to address children, content itself\nwith directing them to obey and honour their parents? Some notions of\nthis sort are allowed, I believe, to serve sometimes as an excuse, when\nyoung persons are blamed for being utterly wanting in a sense of duty\nto God.\n\nThe passages which direct children to obey their parents, are of the\nsame kind with those, directing slaves to obey their masters, and\nmasters to be kind to their slaves; like those, also, which John the\nBaptist addressed to the soldiers and publicans: in none of all which\nthere is any command to love God, but merely a command to fulfil that\nparticular duty which most arose out of the particular relation, or\ncalling of the persons addressed. In fact, when parents are addressed,\nthey are directed only to do their duties to their children, just as\nchildren are directed to do theirs to their parents; in both cases\nalike, the common duty of parents and children to God is not dwelt upon,\nbecause that is a duty which does not belong to them as parents, or as\nchildren, but as human beings; and as such, it belongs to all alike. In\nfact, the very language of St. Paul's command to children implies this;\nfor he says, \"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is\nright:\" right, that is, in the sight of God: so that the very reason for\nwhich children are to discharge their earthly duties is, because that\nearthly duty is commanded by, or involved in, their heavenly duty; if\nthey do not do it, they will not please God. But it is manifest that, in\nthis respect, there is for all of us one only law, so soon as we are\nable to understand it. The moment that a child becomes capable of\nunderstanding anything about God and Christ,--and how early that is,\nevery parent can testify,--that moment the duty to love God and Christ\nbegins. It were absurd to say, that this duty has not begun at the age\nof boyhood. A boy is able to understand the force of religious motives,\nas well as he can that of earthly motives: he cannot understand either,\nperhaps, so well as he will hereafter; but he understands both enough,\nfor the purposes of his salvation; enough, to condemn him before God, if\nhe neglects them; enough to make him derive the greatest benefit from\nfaithfully observing them.\n\nAnd what can have been the purpose with which the only particular of our\nLord's early life has been handed down to us, if it were not to direct\nour attention to this special truth, that our youth, no less than our\nriper age, belongs to God? \"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's\nbusiness?\" were words spoken by our Lord when he was no more than twelve\nyears old. At twelve years old, he thought of preparing himself for the\nduties of his after-life; and of preparing himself for them, because\nthey were God's will. He was to be about his Father's business. This is\nChrist's example for the young; this, and scarcely anything more than\nthis, is recorded of his early years. Those are not like Christ who, at\nthat same age, or even older, never think at all of the business of\ntheir future lives, still less would think of it, not as the means of\ntheir own maintenance or advancement, but as the duty which they owe\nto God.\n\nSuch as these are the very persons whose hearts are like the house in\nthe parable, empty, swept, and garnished. The house so described in the\nparable is one out of which an evil spirit has just departed. In case of\nthe young, the evil spirit in this sense, that is, as representing some\none particular favourite sin, may perhaps have never entered it. That\nempty, swept, and garnished house, how like is it to what I have seen,\nto what I am seeing so continually, when a boy comes here with much\nstill remaining of the innocence of childhood! Evil spirit, in the sense\nof any one particular vice, there is none to be found in that heart, nor\nhas there been any ever. It is empty, swept, and garnished: there is the\nabsence of evil; there are the various faculties, the furniture, as they\nmay be called, of the house of our spirits, which the spirit uses either\nfor evil or for good. There is innocence, then; there is, also, the\npromise of power. God hath richly endowed the earthly house of our\ntabernacle: various and wonderful is the furniture of body and mind with\nwhich it is supplied. How can we help admiring that open and cheerful\nbrow which, as yet, no care or sin has furrowed; those light and active\nlimbs, full of health and vigour; the eye so quick; the ear so undulled;\nthe memory so ready; the young curiosity so eager to take in new\nknowledge; the young feelings, not yet spoiled by over-excitement, ready\nto admire, ready to love? There is the house, the house of God's\nbuilding, the house which must abide for ever; but where is the spirit\nto inhabit it? Evil spirit there is none: is it, then, possessed by the\nSpirit of God? Has the fire from heaven as yet descended upon that\nhouse,--the living sign of God's presence, which alone can convert the\nhouse of perishable clay into the everlasting temple?\n\nCan that blessed Spirit of God be indeed there, and yet no sign of his\npresence be manifest? It may be so, or to speak more truly, it might\nhave been supposed to be so, if God's word had not declared the\ncontrary. What God's secret workings are; in how many ways, to us\ninscrutable, he may pervade all nature; in how many cases he may be near\nus, and we know it not; may, perhaps, be amongst those real mysteries,\nthose truths revealed to none, nor to be revealed; those yet uncleared\nforests, so to speak, of the world of nature, into which the light of\ngrace has not been permitted to penetrate. But all such mysteries are to\nus as if they did not exist at all: we have nothing to do with them. God\nhas told us nothing of his unseen and undiscernible presence; when and\nwhere he is so present, he is to us as if he were not present at all.\nGod was in the wilderness of Horeb before the bush was kindled; but he\nwas not there for Moses. God, in some sense discernible, it may be, to\nother beings, may be in that house which, to us is empty; but God, our\nown God, the Holy Spirit, into whose service we were baptized, where he\nis, the house is not empty to us, but full of light. Invisible in\nhimself, the signs of his presence are most visible: where no works, no\nfruits of the Holy Spirit are to be discerned, there, according to our\nLord's express declaration, there the Holy Spirit is not.\n\nBut the light which declares his presence may indeed be a little spark;\njust to be seen, and no more. It may show that he has not abandoned all\nhis right to the house of our tabernacle as yet; that he would desire to\npossess us fully. Such a little spark, such an evidence of the Holy\nSpirit's presence, is to be found in the outward profession of\nChristianity. They who call Jesus Lord, do it by the Holy Ghost; and,\ntherefore, it is quite true in this sense, that in every baptized\nChristian, who has not utterly apostatized, there is that faint sign of\nthe Holy Spirit's still having a claim upon him; he is not yet utterly\ncast off. This is true; but it is not to our present purpose; such a\nfeeble sign is a sign of God's yet unwearied mercy, but no sign of our\nsalvation. The presence with which the parable is concerned, is a far\nmore effectual presence than this; the house in which there is no more\nthan such a faint sign of a divine inhabitant, is, in the language of\nthe parable, empty. To no purpose of our salvation is the Spirit of God\npresent in the house, when the light of his presence does not flash\nforth from every part of it, when it is not manifest, not only that he\nhas not quite cast it off to go to ruin, but that he has been pleased to\nmake it his temple.\n\nIn this sense, therefore, in this practical, scriptural, Christian\nsense, those many young minds, which we have seen so often, may truly be\ncalled empty. But will they remain so long? How often have I seen the\nearly innocence of boyhood overcast; the natural simplicity of boyhood,\nits open truth, its confident affection, its honest shame, perverted,\nblunted, hardened! How often have I seen the seven evil spirits enter in\nand dwell there,--I know not, and never may know, whether to be cast out\nagain, or to abide for ever. But I have seen them enter, and, whilst the\nperson was yet within my view, I have not seen them depart. And why have\nthey entered; why have they marred that which was so beautiful? For one\nonly reason,--because the house was empty, because the Spirit of God was\nnot there: there was no love of God, no thought of God. Mere innocence\ntaints and spoils as surely before the influence of the world, as true\nprinciple flourishes in spite of it, and strengthens. This, too, I have\nseen, not once only: I have seen the innocence of early boyhood\nsanctified by something better than innocence, which gave a promise of\nabiding. I have seen, in other words, that the house was not empty; that\nthe Spirit of God was there. I have watched the effect of those\ninfluences, which you know so well: the second half-year came, a period\nwhen mere innocence is sure to be worn away, greatly tainted, if not\nutterly gone; but still, in the cases which I am now alluding to, the\npromise of good was not less, but greater, there was a more tried, and,\ntherefore, a stronger goodness. I have watched this, too, till it passed\non, out of my sight. I never saw the blessed Spirit of God depart from\nthe house which he had chosen: I well believe that he abides in it\nstill, and will abide in it even to the day of Jesus Christ.\n\nThis I have seen, and this I shall continue to see; for still the great\nwork of evil and of good is going on; still the house, at first empty,\nis possessed by the spirits of evil, or by the Spirit of God. And if we\ndo not see the signs of the Spirit of God, we are but too sure that the\nevil spirit is there. We know him by the manifold signs of folly,\ncoarseness, carelessness; even when we see not, as yet, his worse fruits\nof falsehood and profligacy. We know him by the sign of an increased,\nand increasing selfishness, the everlasting cry of the thousand passions\nof our nature, all for ever calling out, \"Give, give;\" all for ever\nimpatient, complaining, when their gratification is withheld, when the\ncall of duty is set before them. We know him by pride and\nself-importance, as if nothing was so great as self, as if our own\nopinions, judgment, feelings were to be consulted in all things. We know\nhim by the deep ungodliness which he occasions--no thought of God, much\nless any love of him; living utterly without him in the world, or, at\nleast, whilst health and prosperity continue. These are the fatal signs\nwhich show that the house is no longer empty; that the evil spirits have\nentered in, and dwell there, to make it theirs, as too often happens,\nfor time and for eternity.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XVI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMATHEW xi. 10.\n\n_I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before\nthee_.\n\n\nIf it was part of God's dispensation, that there should be one to\nprepare the way before Christ's first coming, it may be expected much\nmore, that there should be some to prepare the way before his second.\nAnd so it is expressed in the collect for the third Sunday in Advent: \"O\nLord Jesus Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to\nprepare thy way before thee; grant that the ministers and stewards of\nthy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning\nthe hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy\nsecond coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in\nthy sight, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit,\never one God, world without end. Amen.\" NOW, in what does this preparing\nfor him consist; and what is its object? The Scripture will inform us as\nto both. The object is, \"Lest he come and smite the earth with a curse;\"\nlest, when he shall come, his coming, which should be our greatest joy\nand happiness, should be our everlasting destruction; for there can\nabide before him nothing that is evil. This is the object of preparing\nfor Christ's coming. Next, in what does the preparation consist? It\nconsists in teaching men to live above the common notions of their age\nand country; to raise their standard higher; to live after what is right\nin God's judgment, which often casts away, as faulty and bad, what men\nwere accustomed to think good. And as the people of Israel, although\nthey had God's revelation among them, had yet let their standard of good\nand evil become low, even so it has been in the Christian Israel. We\nhave God's will in our hands, yet our judgments are not formed upon it;\nand, therefore, they who would prepare us for Christ's coming, must set\nbefore us a commandment which is new, although old: in one sense old, in\nevery generation, inasmuch as it is the same which we had from the\nbeginning; in another sense, in every generation more new, inasmuch, as\nthe habits opposed to it have become the more confirmed; and the longer\nthe night has lasted, the more strange to our eyes is the burst of the\nreturning light.\n\nBut when we thus speak of the common notions of our age and country\nbeing deficient, and thus, in effect, commend notions which would be\nsingular, do we not hold a language inconsistent with our common\nlanguage and practice? Do we not commonly regard singularity as a fault,\nand attach a considerable authority to the consent of men in general?\nNay, do we not often appeal to this consent as to a proof which a sane\nmind must admit as decisive? Even in speaking of good and evil, have not\nthe very words gained their present sense because the common consent of\nmankind has agreed to combine notions of self-satisfaction, of honour,\nand of love, with what we call good, and the contrary with what we\ncall evil?\n\nA short time may, perhaps, not be misapplied in endeavouring to explain\nthis matter; in showing where, and for what reasons, the common opinion\nof our society is to be followed, where it is to be suspected, and\nwhere it is absolutely to be shunned or trampled under foot, as clearly\nand certainly evil.\n\nI must begin with little things, in order to show the whole question\nplainly. Take those tastes in us which most resemble the instincts of a\nbrute; and you will find that in these, as with instinct, common consent\nbecomes a sure rule. When I speak of those tastes which most resemble\ninstincts, I mean those in which nature, doing most for us at first,\nleaves least for us to learn for ourselves. This seems the character of\ninstinct: it is far more complete than reason in its first stage, but it\nadmits of no after improvement; the brute in the thousandth generation\nis no way advanced beyond the brute in the first. Of our tastes, even of\nthose belonging to our bodily senses, that which belongs to what are\ncalled particularly our organs of taste is the one most resembling an\ninstinct: we have less to do for its improvement than in any other\ninstance. Men being here, then, upon an equality, with a faculty given\nto all by nature, and improved particularly by none, those who differ\nfrom the majority are likely to differ not from excellence but from\ndefect: not because they have a more advanced reason, but because they\nhave a less healthy instinct, than their neighbours. Thus, in those\nmatters which relate to the sense of taste--I am obliged to take this\nalmost trivial instance, because it so well illustrates the principle of\nthe whole question--we hold the consent of men in general to be a good\nrule. If any one were to choose to feed upon what this common taste had\npronounced to be disgusting, we should not hesitate to say that such an\nappetite was diseased and monstrous.\n\nNow, let us take our senses of sight and hearing, and we shall find that\njust in the proportion in which these less resemble instincts than the\nsense of taste, so is common consent a less certain rule. Up to a\ncertain point they are instincts: there are certain sounds which, I\nsuppose, are naturally disagreeable to the ear; while, on the other\nhand, bright and rich colours are, perhaps, naturally attractive to the\neye. But, then, sight and hearing are so connected with our minds that\nthey are susceptible of very great cultivation, and thus differ greatly\nfrom instincts. As the mind opens, outward sights and sounds become\nconnected with a great number of associations, and thus we learn to\nthink the one or the other beautiful, for reasons which really depend\nvery much on the range of our own ideas. Consider, for a moment, the\nbeautiful in architecture. If the model of the leaning tower of Pisa\nwere generally adopted in our public buildings, all men's common sense\nwould cry out against it as a deformity, because a leaning wall would\nconvey to every mind the notion of insecurity, and every body would feel\nthat it was unpleasant to see a building look exactly as if it were\ngoing to fall down. Now, what I have called common sense is, in a\nmanner, the instinct of our reason: it is that uniform level of reason\nwhich all sane persons reach to, and the wisest in matters within its\nprovince do not surpass. But go beyond this, and architecture is no\nlonger a matter of mere common sense, but of science, and of cultivated\ntaste. Here the standard of beauty is not fixed by common consent; but,\nin the first instance, devised or discovered by the few: and, so far as\nit is received by the many, received by them on the authority of the\nfew, and sanctioned, so to speak, not so much from real sympathy and\nunderstanding, as from a reasonable trust and deference to those who are\nbelieved the best judges.\n\nHere, then, we suppose that the common judgment is right; but we\nperceive a difference between this case and the one mentioned before,\ninasmuch as in the first instance the right judgment of the mass of\nmankind is their own; in the second instance, they have adopted it out\nof deference to others. Not only, then, will men's common judgment be\nright in matters of instinct and of common sense, but also in higher\nmatters, where, although they could not have discovered what was right,\nyet they were perfectly willing to adopt it, when discovered by others.\nAnd this opens a very wide field. For in all matters which come under\nthe dominion of fashion, where the avowed object is the convenience or\ngratification of society, men listen to those who profess to teach them\nwith almost an excess of docility: they will adopt sometimes fashions\nwhich are not convenient. But yet, as men can tell well enough by\nexperience whether they do find a thing convenient and agreeable or not,\nso it is most likely that fashions which continue long and generally\nprevalent are founded upon sound principles; because else men, being\nwell capable of knowing what convenience is, and being also well\ndisposed to follow it, would neither have been very long or very\ngenerally mistaken in this matter; nor would have acquiesced in their\nmistake contentedly.\n\nWe do perfectly right, then, to regard the common opinion as a rule in\nall points of dress, in our houses and furniture, in those lighter\nusages of society which come under the denomination of manners, as\ndistinguished from morals. In all these, if the mass of mankind could\nnot find out what would best suit them, yet they are quite ready to\nadopt it when it is found out; and so they equally arrive at truth. But\ntake away this readiness, and the whole case is altered. If there be any\npoint in which men are not ready to adopt what is best for them; if they\nare either indifferent, or still more, if they are averse to it; if\nthey thus have neither the power of discovering it for themselves, nor\nthe will to avail themselves of it, when discovered for them; then it is\nclear that, in such a point, the common judgment will be of no value,\nnay, there will even be a presumption that it is wrong.\n\nNow as the common consent of mankind was most sure in matters where\ntheir sense most resembled instinct, that is, where nature had done most\nfor them, and left them least to do for themselves; as here, therefore,\nthey who are sound are the great majority, and the exceptions are no\nbetter than disease; so if there be any part of us which is the direct\nopposite to instinct, a part in which nature has done next to nothing\nfor us, and all is to be done by ourselves; then, here the common\nconsent of mankind will be of the least value; here the majority will be\nhelpless and worthless; and they who are happy enough to be exceptions\nto this majority, will be no other than Christ's redeemed.\n\nNow, again, if this deficient part of our nature could be seen purely\ndistinct from every other; if it alone dictated our language, and\ninspired our actions, then it would follow, that language which must\never be fixed by the majority, would be, in fact, the language of the\nworld of infinite evil; and our actions those of mere devils. Then,\nwhoever of us would be saved, must needs begin by forswearing,\naltogether, both the language and the actions of his fellow-men. But\nthis is not so; in almost every instance this deficient part of our\nnature acts along with others that are not so corrupted; it mars their\nwork, undoubtedly; it often confuses and perverts our language; it\nalways taints our actions; but it does not wholly usurp either the one\nor the other; and thus, by God's blessing, man's language yet affords a\nhigh witness to divine truth, and even men's judgments and actions\ntestify, though with infinite imperfection, to the existence and\nexcellence of goodness.\n\nAnd this it is which forms one of the great perplexities of life; for as\nthere is enough of what is right in men's judgments and conduct to\nforbid us from saying, that we must take the very rule of contraries,\nand think and do just the opposite to the opinions and practice of men\nin general; so, on the other hand, there is always so much wrong in\nthem, that we may never dare to follow them as a standard, but shall\nfind, that if trusted to as such, they will inevitably betray us. So\nthat in points of greater moment than mere manners and fashion, it will\never be true, that if we would be prepared for Christ's coming, we must\nrise to a far higher standard than that of society in general; that in\nthe greatest concerns of human life, the practice of the majority,\nthough always containing something of good, is yet in its prevailing\ncharacter, as regards God, so evil, that they who are content to follow\nit cannot be saved.\n\nThis is the explanation of the apparent difficulty in the general, and\nthus, while acknowledging that there are points in which men, by common\nconsent, make out what is best; and others in which, although they do\nnot make it out, nor at first appreciate it, yet they are very willing\nto adopt it upon trust, and so come by experience to value it; while,\ntherefore, there are a great many things in which singularity is either\na disease or a foolishness; so again there are other points in which men\nin general have not the power to make out what is good, nor yet the\ndocility to adopt it; and, therefore, in these points, which relate to\nthe great matters of life, singularity is wisdom and salvation, and he\nwho does as others do, perishes. That is what is called the corruption\nof human nature. I shall attempt, on another occasion, to go into some\nfurther details, and show, by common examples, how strangely our\njudgment and practice contain, with much that is right, just that one\ntaint or defect which, as a whole, spoils them. And this one defect will\nbe found to be, as the Scripture declares, a defect in our sense of our\nrelation towards God.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XVII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1 CORINTHIANS ii. 12.\n\n_We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is\nof God_.\n\n\nAnd, therefore, he goes on to say, our language is different from that\nof others, and not always understood by them; the natural man receiveth\nnot the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he\nknow them, because they are spiritually discerned. That is, they are\ndiscerned only by a faculty which he has not, namely, by the Spirit;\nand, therefore, as beings devoid of reason cannot understand the truths\nof science, or of man's wisdom, for they are without the faculty which\ncan discern them; so beings devoid of God's Spirit cannot understand the\ntruths of God.\n\nNow, in order to turn this passage to our profit, we need not consider\nthose who are wholly without God's Spirit, or inquire whether, indeed,\nthere be any such; it is not that there are two broadly marked divisions\nof all men, those who have not the Spirit of God at all, and those who\nhave it abundantly: if it were so, the separation of the great day of\njudgment would be begun already, nor would it require, in order to\neffect it rightly, the wisdom of Him who trieth the very hearts and\nreins. No doubt there will be at last but two divisions of us all, the\nsaved and the lost; but now the divisions are infinite; so much so that\nthe great body of us offer much matter for hope as well as for fear. We\ncannot say, that they are without the Spirit of God; yet neither can we\nsay that they are led by the Spirit, so as to be God's true servants. We\ncannot say, that the things of God's are absolutely to them as\nfoolishness; yet certainly, we cannot say either, that they are to them\nas the divinest wisdom.\n\nAnd here we return to the subject on which I was speaking last Sunday.\nIt is because we are not led by the Spirit of God, but have within us\nmuch of the spirit of the world, that our judgments of right and wrong\nare so faulty; and that this faultiness is particularly seen in our\nfaint sense of our relations to God. These relations seem continually\nfoolishness to us, because they are spiritually discerned, and we have\nso little of God's Spirit to enable us to discern them. And our\nblindness here affects our whole souls; we have, in consequence of it, a\nmuch fainter perception even of those truths which reason can discern by\nherself; or, at any rate, if we do not doubt them, they have over us\nmuch less influence.\n\nNow we will first see how much of natural reason, and even of the Spirit\nof God, does exist in our common judgments; for it is fair to see and to\nallow what there is of right in our language and sentiments, as well as\nto note what is wrong. Reason influences thus much, that we not only\ncommend good generally, and blame evil; but even, in particular cases,\nwe commend, I think, each separate virtue, and we blame each separate\nvice. I never heard of justice, truth, kindness, self-denial, &c., being\nother than approved of in themselves; or injustice, falsehood, malice,\nand selfishness being other than condemned. And the Spirit of God\ninfluences at least thus much, that we shrink from direct blasphemy and\nprofaneness; we cannot but respect those whom we believe to be living\nsincerely in the fear of God; and further, if we thought our death\nnear, we should desire to hear of God, and to depart from this life\nunder his favour. No doubt, all such feelings, so far as they go, are\nthe work of God's Spirit: whatever is good and right in our minds\ntowards God, that proceeds not from the spirit of the world, but from\nthe Spirit of God.\n\nWhere, then, is the great defect which yet continually makes our\npractical judgments quite wrong; which makes us, in fact, so often\ncountenance and support evil, and discountenance and discourage good?\nFirst, it is owing to the spirit of carelessness. One of the most\nemphatic terms by which a good man is expressed in the language of the\nGreek philosophers, is that of [Greek: opdouiaos], \"one who is in\nearnest.\" To be in earnest is, indeed, with, most of us, the same as to\nbe good; it is not that we love evil, but that we are indifferent both\nto it and to good. Now, many of us are very seldom in earnest. By this I\nmean, that the highest part of our minds, and that which judges of the\nhighest things, is generally slumbering or but half awake. We may go\nthrough, a very busy day, and yet not be, in this true sense, in earnest\nat all; our best faculties may, as it were, be all the while sleeping or\nplaying. It is notorious how much this is so in the common intercourse\nof society in the world. Light anecdotes; playful remarks; discussions,\nit may be, about the affairs of the neighbourhood, or, in some\ncompanies, on questions of science or party politics; all these may be\noften heard; but we may talk on all these brilliantly and well, and yet\nour best nature may not once be called to exert itself. So again, in\nmere routine business, it is the same: the body may toil; the pen move\nswiftly; the thoughts act in the particular matter before them\nvigorously; and yet we our proper selves, beings understanding and\nchoosing between good and evil, have never bestirred ourselves at all.\nIt has been but a skirmishing at the outposts; not a sword had been\ndrawn in the main battle. Take younger persons, and the same thing is\nthe case even more palpably. Here there is less of business in the\ncommon sense of the term; the mind is almost always unbraced and\nresting. We pass through the good and evil of our daily life, and our\nproper self scarcely ever is aroused to notice either the one or\nthe other.\n\nBut the worst of it is, that this carelessness is not altogether\naccidental: it is a carelessness which we do not wish to break. So long\nas it lasts, we manage to get the activity and interest of life, without\na sense of its responsibility. We like exceedingly to lay the reins, as\nit were, upon the neck of our inclinations, to go where they take us,\nand to ask no questions whether we are in the right road or no.\nInclination is never slumbering: this gives us excitement enough to save\nus from weariness, without the effort of awakening our conscience too.\nTherefore society, expressing in its rules the feelings of its\nindividual members, prescribes exactly such a style of conversation as\nmay keep in exercise all other parts of our nature except that one which\nshould be sovereign of all, and whose exercise is employed on\nthings eternal.\n\nNot being, then, properly in earnest,--that is, our conscience and our\nchoice of moral good and evil being in a state of repose,--our language\nis happily contrived so as that it shall contain nothing to startle our\nsleeping conscience, if her ears catch any of its sounds. We still\ncommend good and dispraise evil, both in the general and in the\nparticular. But as good and evil are mixed in every man, and in various\nproportions, he who commends, the little good of a bad man, saying\nnothing of his evil,--or he who condemns the little evil of a good man,\nsaying nothing of his good,--leads us evidently to a false practical\nconclusion; he leads us to like the bad man and to dislike the good.\nAgain, the lesser good becomes an evil if it keeps out a greater good;\nand, in the same way, the lesser evil becomes a good. If we have no\nthought of comparing good things together, if our sovereign nature be\nasleep, then we shall most estimate the good to which we are most\ninclined; and where we find this we shall praise it, not observing that\nit is taking up the place of a greater good which the case requires,\nand, therefore, that it is in fact an evil. So that our moral judgments\nmay lead practically to great evil: we may join with bad men and despise\ngood; we may approve of qualities which, are, in fact, ruining a man;\nand despise others which, in the particular case, are virtues; without\never in plain words condemning virtue or approving vice.\n\nBut, farther, this habit of never being in earnest greatly lowers the\nstrength of our feelings even towards the good which we praise and\ntowards the evil which we condemn. It was an admirable definition of\nthat which excites laughter, that it was that which is out of rule, that\nwhich is amiss, that which is unsightly, (these three ideas, and other\nsimilar ones, are alike contained in the single Greek word [Greek:\naischron],) provided that it was unaccompanied by pain. This definition\naccounts for the otherwise extraordinary fact, that there is something\nin moral evil which, in some instances, affects the mind ludicrously.\nThat is to say, if moral evil affects us with no pain; if we see in it\nnothing, so to speak, but its irregularity, its strange contrast with\nwhat is beautiful, its jarring with the harmony of the system around us;\nthen it does acquire that character which is well defined as being\nridiculous. Thus it is notorious that trifling follies, and even gross\nvices, are often so represented in works of fiction as to be\nexceedingly ludicrous. It is enough, as an instance of what I mean, to\nname the vice of drunkenness. Get rid for the moment of the notions of\nvice or sin which, accompany it, and which give moral pain; get rid also\nof those points in it which awaken physical disgust; retain merely the\nnotion of the incoherent language, and the strange capricious gait of\nintoxication; and we have then an image merely ridiculous, as much, so\nas the rambling talk and absurd gestures of the old buffoons.\n\nHere, then, we have the secret of vice becoming laughable; and of things\nwhich are really wicked, disgusting, hateful, being expressed by names\npurely ludicrous. Where no great physical pain or distress is occasioned\nby what is evil, our sense of its ludicrousness will be exactly in\nproportion to the faintness of our sense of moral evil; or, in other\nwords, to our want of being in earnest. The evil that does not seriously\npain or inconvenience man, is very apt to be regarded with feelings\napproaching to laughter, if we have no sense of pain at the notion of\nits being an offence against God.\n\nThus, then, we have seen how, from the want of being in earnest, from\nthe habitual slumber of conscience, or that sovereign part of us which\nlooks upon our whole state with reference to its highest interests, and\npasses judgment upon all our actions,--how, from the practical absence\nof these, we may get to follow evil persons, and be indifferent to the\ngood; to admire qualities which, from usurping the place of better ones,\nare actually ruinous; and, finally, to regard all common evil not so\nmuch with deep abhorrence, as with a disposition to laugh at it. And\nthus the practical judgment and influence of the society around us may\nbe fatally evil; while the society all the time shall contain, even in\nits very perversion, various elements of truth and of good.\n\nI have kept to general language, to general views, perhaps too much; but\nall the time my mind has been fixed on the particular application of\nthis, which lies scarcely beneath the surface, but which I cannot well\nbear more fully to unveil. But whoever has attended to what I have been\nsaying, will be able, I should trust, to make the application, for\nhimself, to those points in our society which most need correction. He\nwill be able to understand how it is that the influence of the place is\nnot better, while it undoubtedly contains so much of good; how the\npublic opinion of a Christian school may yet be, in many respects, very\nunchristian. If he has attended at all to what I have said about our so\nrarely being in earnest, he will see something of the mischief of some\nof those publications, of those books, of that tone of conversation,\nwhich, I suppose, are here, as elsewhere, in fashion. Utterly impossible\nis it to lay down a rule for others in such matters: to say this book is\ntoo light, or this is an excess of light reading, or this laugh was too\nunrestrained, or that tone of trifling too perpetual. But, in these\nthings, we should all judge ourselves; and remember that you are so\nlittle under outward restraint, your choice of reading is so free, your\nintercourse with one another so wholly uncontrolled, that, enjoying thus\nthe full liberty of more advanced years, you incur also their\nresponsibility. There is, doubtless, an excess of light reading, both in\nkind and in quantity; there is such a thing as a tone of conversation\nand manner too entirely, and too frequently, trifling. And you must be\nquite aware that we are placed here for something else than to indulge\nsuch a temper as this. Cheerfulness and thoughtlessness have no\nnecessary connexion; the lightest spirits, which are indeed one of the\ngreatest of earthly blessings, often play around the most earnest\nthought and the tenderest affection, and with far more grace than when\nthey are united with the shallowness and hardness of him who is, in the\nsight of God, a fool. It were a strange notion, that we could never be\nmerry without intoxication, yet not stranger than to think that mirth is\nthe companion only of folly or of sin. But, setting God in Christ before\nus, then the conscience is awake; then we are in earnest; then we\nmeasure things rightly; then we feel them strongly; then we love those\nthat are good, and shun those that are evil; then we learn that sin is\nno matter of laughter, that it ill deserves to be clothed under a\nludicrous name; for that thing which we laugh at, that which we so\nmiscall, is indeed the cause of infinite evil; for that Christ died; for\nthat there are some who die that death which lasts for ever.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XVIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGENESIS xxvii. 38.\n\n_And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father?\nBless me, even me also, O my father_.\n\n\nMATTHEW xv. 27.\n\n_And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall\nfrom their master's table_.\n\n\nOf these two passages, the first, as we must all remember, is taken from\nthe first lesson of this morning's service; the second is from the\nmorning's gospel. Both speak the same language, and point out, I think,\nthat particular view of the story of Jacob obtaining the blessing which\nis most capable of being turned to account; for, as to the conduct of\nJacob and his mother, it is manifestly no more capable of affording us\nbenefit, as a matter of example, than the conduct, in some respects\nsimilar, of the unjust steward in our Lord's parable. The example,\nindeed, is of the same kind as that. If the steward was so anxious about\nhis future worldly welfare, and Jacob about the worldly welfare of his\ndescendants, that they did not scruple to obtain their ends, the one by\ndishonesty, the other by falsehood, much more should we be anxious about\nthe true welfare of ourselves and those belonging to us, which no such\nunworthy means can be required to gain. But the point of the story to\nwhich the text refers, and which is illustrated also by the words of\nthe Syrophoenician woman, is one which very directly concerns us all,\nbeing no other than this,--what should be the effect upon our own minds\nof witnessing others possessed of greater advantages than ourselves,\nwhether obtained by the immediate gift of God, through the course of his\nordinary providence, or acquired directly by some unjust or unlawful act\nof those who are in possession of them?\n\nNow, it is evident that, as equality is not the rule either of nature or\nof human society, there must be many in every congregation who are so\nfar in the condition of Esau and of the Syrophoenician woman, as to be\ninferior to others around them in some one or more advantages. The\ninferiority may consist in what are called worldly advantages, or in\nnatural advantages, or in spiritual advantages, or in some or all of\nthese united. And it is not to be doubted that the sense of this\ninferiority is a hard trial, both as respects our feelings towards God\nand towards men. It is a hard trial; but yet, no trial overtakes us but\nsuch as is common to man: and here, as in all other cases, God will,\nwith the trial, also make a way for us to escape, that we may be able\nto bear it.\n\nLet us consider, then, some of the most common cases in which this\ninferiority exists amongst us. With regard to worldly advantages, the\npeculiar nature of this congregation makes it less necessary than it\ngenerally would be, to dwell upon inequality in these: in fact, speaking\ngenerally, we are a very unusual example of equality in these respects;\nthe advantages of station and fortune are enjoyed not, literally, in an\nequal degree by all of us, but equally as compared with, the lot of the\ngreat mass of society; we all enjoy the necessaries, and most of the\ncomforts of life. What differences there are would, probably, appear in\ninstances seemingly trifling, if, indeed, any thing were really\ntrifling by which the temper and feelings, and through them the\nprinciples, of any amongst us may be affected for good or for evil. It\nmay possibly happen that, in the indulgences, or means of indulgence,\ngiven to you by your friends at home, there may be sometimes, such a\ndifference as to excite discontent or jealousy. It may be, that some are\napt to exult over others, by talking of the pleasures, or the liberty,\nwhich they enjoy; and which the friends of others, either from necessity\nor from a sense of duty, are obliged to withhold. If this be ever felt\nby any of you as a trial; if it gall your pride, as well as restrict\nyour enjoyments; then remember, that here, even in this seemingly little\nthing, the inferiority of which you complain may be either increased\nten-fold, or changed into a blessed superiority. Increased ten-fold,\neven as from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he\nhath, if by discontent, and evil passions towards God and man, you make\nyourselves a hundred times more inferior spiritually than you were in\noutward circumstances; but changed into a blessed superiority, if it be\nborne with meekness, and patience, and thankfulness, even as it was said\nof the Gentile centurion, that there had not been found faith equal to\nhis, no, not in Israel.\n\nBut turning from worldly advantages to those which are called natural,\nand the inequality here is at once as great as elsewhere. In all\nfaculties of body and mind; in the vigour of the senses, of the limbs,\nof the general constitution; in the greater or less liability to disease\ngenerally, or to any particular form of it; or, again, in powers of\nmind, in quickness, in memory, in imagination, in judgment; the\ndifferences between different persons in this congregation must be\nexceedingly wide. But, with regard to bodily powers, the trial is little\nfelt, till the inferiority is shown in actual suffering from pain or\nfrom disease. So long as we are in health, our enjoyments are so many,\nand we so easily accommodate our habits to our powers, that a mere\ninferiority of strength, whether it be of limb or of constitution, is\nnot apt to make us dissatisfied. But if it comes to actual illness or to\npain, if we are deprived of the common enjoyments and occupations of our\nage, then perhaps the trial begins to be severe; and when we look at\nothers who have taken the same liberties with their health as we have\ndone, and see them notwithstanding perfectly well and strong, while we\nare disabled or suffering, we may think that God has dealt hardly with\nus, and may be inclined to ask with Esau, \"Hast thou but one blessing,\nmy Father? bless me, even me also, O my Father!\" Now this language,\naccording to the sense in which we use it, is either blameable or\ninnocent. If we mean to say, \"Hast thou health to give to others only\nand not to me? give me this blessing also, as thou hast given it to my\nbrethren:\" then it has in it somewhat of discontent and murmuring; it\nimplies a claim to which God never listens. But if we mean, \"Hast thou\nonly one kind of blessing, my father? If thou hast blest others in one\nway, I murmur not nor complain: but out of thine infinite store, give me\nalso such a blessing as may be convenient for me;\" then God hears the\nprayer, then he gives the blessing, and gives it so richly, and makes it\nbear so evidently the mark of his love, that they who were last are\nbecome first; if others have health, and we have sickness, yet the\nspirit of patience and cheerful submission which God gives with it is so\ngreat a blessing, and makes us so certainly happy, that the strongest\nand healthiest of our friends have often far more reason to wish to\nchange places with us, than we with them.\n\nLet us now take inequality in powers of mind. And here, undoubtedly, the\ndifference is apt to be a trial. Not that, probably, it excites\ndiscontent or murmuring against God; nor jealousy against those whose\nfaculties are better than our own: the trial is of another kind; we are\ntempted to make our inferiority an excuse for neglect; because we cannot\ndo so much nor so easily as others, we do far less than we might do. But\nthe parable shows us plainly, that if one talent only has been given us,\nwhile others have ten, yet that the one, no less than the ten, must be\nmade to yield its increase. Here is the feeling expressed so earnestly\nby the woman entreating Christ to heal her daughter. \"The dogs eat of\nthe crumbs which fall from their master's table.\" Small as may be the\nportion of power given us, when compared with the plenty vouchsafed to\nothers, still it is capable of nourishing us if we make use of it; still\nit shows that we too have our blessing. And if using it with\nthankfulness, if doing our very best with it, knowing that \"a man is\naccepted according to what he hath, and not according to what he hath\nnot,\" we labour humbly and diligently; then, not only does the talent\nitself become increased, so that our Lord, when he comes to reckon with\nus, may receive his own with usury: but a blessing of another kind is\nadded to our labours, again, as in the former case, making those who\nwere last to become first. For if there be one thing on earth which is\ntruly admirable, it is to see God's wisdom blessing an inferiority of\nnatural powers, when they have been honestly, humbly, and zealously\ncultivated. From how many pains are they delivered, to which great\nnatural talents are continually exposed; irritation, jealousy, a morbid\nand nervous activity, bearing fruits not of peace, but of gall! With\nwhat blessings are they crowned, to which, the most powerful natural\nunderstanding is a stranger! the love of truth gratified, without the\nfear that truth will demand the sacrifice of personal vanity; the line\nof duty clearly discerned, because those mists of passion and\nselfishness which obscure it so often from the view of the keenest\nnatural perception, have been dispersed by the spirit of humility and\nlove; imperfect knowledge patiently endured, because whatever knowledge\nis enjoyed is known to be God's gift, and what he gives, or what he\nwithholds, is alike welcome. This is the blessing of those who having\nhad inferior natural powers, have so laboured to improve them according\nto God's will, that on all there has been grafted, as it were, some\nbetter power of grace, to yield a fruit most precious both for earth\nand heaven.\n\nBut I spoke of an equality of spiritual advantages also, and this is\nperhaps the hardest trial of all. Oh, how great is this inequality in\ntruth, when it seems to be so little! All of you, the children of\nChristian parents; all members of the Christian Church; all partaking\nhere of the same worship, the same prayers, the same word of God, the\nsame sacrament; are you not all the Israel of God, and not, like Esau,\nor the Syrophoenician woman, strangers to the covenant of blessing? Yet\nyour real condition is, notwithstanding, very unequal. How unlike are\nyour friends at home; how, unlike, also, are your friends here! Are\nthere not some to whom their homes, both by direct precept and by\nexample, are a far greater help than to others? Are there not some,\nwhose immediate companions here may encourage them in all good far more\nthan may be the case with, others? So, then, there may be some to whom\nthis great blessing has been denied, whilst others enjoy it. What then?\nShall we say, that, because we have it not, we will refuse to go in to\nour Father's house; that we will not walk as our brother walks, unless\nwe have his advantages? Then must we remain cast out; vessels fashioned\nto dishonour; rejected of God, and cursed. Nay rather let us put a\nChristian sense on Esau's prayer, and cry, \"'Hast thou but one blessing,\nmy Father? bless me, even me also, O my Father.' If thou hast given to\nothers earthly helps, which thou hast denied to me, give me thyself and\nthy own Spirit the more! If father and mother forsake my most precious\ninterest, do thou take me up. If my nearest friends will not walk with\nme in the house of God, be thou my friend, and abide with, me always,\nmaking my house as thine. Outward and earthly means thou givest or\ntakest away at thy pleasure; but give me help according to my need, that\nI yet may not lose thee.\"\n\nHow naturally are we interested at the thought of any one so\ncircumstanced, and uttering such a prayer! How earnestly do we wish to\nhelp him, to show our respect and true love for a faith so tried and so\nenduring! And think we that God cares for it less than we do? or have we\nnot already the record of his love towards it, when Christ answered the\nSyrophoenician woman, \"O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even\nas thou wilt?\" He may not, indeed, see fit to give the very same\nblessing which was in the first instance denied: we may still have fewer\nspiritual advantages than others, as far as human helps are concerned;\nfewer good and earnest friends; fewer examples of holiness around us;\nfewer to join with us in our prayers and in our struggles against evil.\nBut though this particular blessing may be denied,--as Esau could not\ngain that blessing which had been given to Jacob,--yet there is a\nblessing for us also, which may prove, in the end, even better than our\nbrother's. He who serves God steadily, amidst many disadvantages, enjoys\nthe blessing of a more confirmed and hardier faith; he has gone through\ntrials, and been found conqueror; and for him that overcometh is\nreserved a more abundant measure of glory.\n\nBut on the other side, we who, like Jacob, or Jacob's posterity, have\nthe blessing,--whether it be natural, worldly, or spiritual,--let us\nconsider what became of it when it was not improved. What was the sin\nof Esau,--speaking not of the individual, but of the less favoured\npeople of Edom,--compared with the sin of Jacob? Nay, not of Edom only;\nbut it shall be more tolerable for Sodom, in the day of judgment, than\nfor the unbelieving cities of Israel. So it is, not only with the\nliteral, but with the Christian Israel; so it is, not only with the\nChurch as a whole compared with heathens, but with all those individuals\namongst us, who enjoy in any larger measure than others any of God's\nblessings. They are blessings; but they may be made fatal curses. This\nholds true with blessings of every kind: with station and wealth, with\nbodily health and vigour, with, great powers of mind, with large means\nof spiritual improvement. To whom much is given, of him shall be much,\nrequired. It is required of us to enjoy our blessings by using them: so\nwill they be blessings indeed. So it is with money and influence, with\nhealth, with talents, with spiritual knowledge, and good friends and\nparents. There are first who shall be last; that is, those who began\ntheir course with advantages which set them before their brethren, if\nthey do not exert themselves, will fall grievously behind them: for the\nblessing denied may be, in effect, a blessing given; and the blessing\ngiven, in like manner, becomes too often a blessing taken away.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMATTHEW xxii. 32.\n\n_God is not the God of the dead, but of the living_.\n\n\nWe hear these words as a part of our Lord's answer to the Sadducees;\nand, as their question was put in evident profaneness, and the answer to\nit is one which to our minds is quite obvious and natural, so we are apt\nto think that in this particular story there is less than usual that\nparticularly concerns us. But it so happens, that our Lord, in answering\nthe Sadducees, has brought in one of the most universal and most solemn\nof all truths,--which is indeed implied in many parts of the Old\nTestament, but which the Gospel has revealed to us in all its\nfulness,--the truth contained in the words of the text, that \"God is not\nthe God of the dead, but of the living.\"\n\nI would wish to unfold a little what is contained in these words, which\nwe often hear even, perhaps, without quite understanding them; and many\ntimes oftener without fully entering into them. And we may take them,\nfirst, in their first part, where they say that \"God is not the God of\nthe dead.\"\n\nThe word \"dead,\" we know, is constantly used in Scripture in a double\nsense, as meaning those who are dead spiritually, as well as those who\nare dead naturally. And, in either sense, the words are alike\napplicable: \"God is not the God of the dead.\"\n\nGod's not being the God of the dead signifies two things: that they who\nare without him are dead, as well as that they who are dead are also\nwithout him. So far as our knowledge goes respecting inferior animals,\nthey appear to be examples of this truth. They appear to us to have no\nknowledge of God; and we are not told that they have any other life than\nthe short one of which our senses inform us. I am well aware that our\nignorance of their condition is so great that, we may not dare to say\nanything of them positively; there may be a hundred things true\nrespecting them which we neither know nor imagine. I would only say\nthat, according to that most imperfect light in which we see them, the\ntwo points of which I have been speaking appear to meet in them: we\nbelieve that they have no consciousness of God, and we believe that they\nwill die. And so far, therefore, they afford an example of the\nagreement, if I may so speak, between these two points; and were\nintended, perhaps, to be to our view a continual image of it. But we had\nfar better speak of ourselves. And here, too, it is the case that \"God\nis not the God of the dead.\" If we are without him we are dead; and if\nwe are dead we are without him: in other words, the two ideas of death\nand absence from God are in fact synonymous.\n\nThus, in the account given of the fall of man, the sentence of death and\nof being cast out of Eden go together; and if any one compares the\ndescription of the second Eden in the Revelation, and recollects how\nespecially it is there said, that God dwells in the midst of it, and is\nits light by day and night, he will see that the banishment from the\nfirst Eden means a banishment from the presence of God. And thus, in the\nday that Adam sinned, he died; for he was cast out of Eden immediately,\nhowever long he may have moved about afterwards upon the earth where\nGod was not. And how very strong to the same point are the words of\nHezekiah's prayer, \"The grave cannot praise thee, Death cannot celebrate\nthee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth;\" words\nwhich express completely the feeling that God is not the God of the\ndead. This, too, appears to be the sense generally of the expression\nused in various parts of the Old Testament, \"Thou shalt surely die.\" It\nis, no doubt, left purposely obscure; nor are we ever told, in so many\nwords, all that is meant by death; but, surely, it always implies a\nseparation from God, and the being--whatever the notion may extend\nto--the being dead to him. Thus, when David had committed his great sin,\nand had expressed his repentance for it, Nathan tells him, \"The Lord\nalso hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die:\" which means, most\nexpressively, thou shalt not die to God. In one sense, David died, as\nall men die; nor was he, by any means, freed from the punishment of his\nsin: he was not, in that sense, forgiven; but he was allowed still to\nregard God as his God; and, therefore, his punishments were but fatherly\nchastisements from God's hand, designed for his profit, that he might be\npartaker of God's holiness. And thus although Saul was sentenced to lose\nhis kingdom, and although he was killed with his sons on Mount Gilboa,\nyet I do not think that we find the sentence passed upon him, \"Thou\nshalt surely die;\" and, therefore, we have no right to say that God had\nceased to be his God, although be visited him with severe chastisements,\nand would not allow him to hand down to his sons the crown of Israel.\nObserve, also, the language of the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, where\nthe expressions occur so often, \"He shall surely live,\" and \"He shall\nsurely die.\" We have no right to refer these to a mere extension, on the\none hand, or a cutting short, on the other, of the term of earthly\nexistence. The promise of living long in the land, or, as in Hezekiah's\ncase, of adding to his days fifteen years, is very different from the\nfull and unreserved blessing, \"Thou shalt surely live.\" And we know,\nundoubtedly, that both the good and the bad to whom Ezekiel spoke, died\nalike the natural death of the body. But the peculiar force of the\npromise, and of the threat, was, in the one case, Thou shalt belong to\nGod; in the other, Thou shalt cease to belong to him; although the veil\nwas not yet drawn up which concealed the full import of those terms,\n\"belonging to God,\" and \"ceasing to belong to him:\" nay, can we venture\nto affirm that it is fully drawn aside even now?\n\nI have dwelt on this at some length, because it really seems to place\nthe common state of the minds of too many amongst us in a light which is\nexceedingly awful; for if it be true, as I think the Scripture implies,\nthat to be dead, and to be without God, are precisely the same thing,\nthen can it be denied, that the symptoms of death are strongly marked\nupon many of us? Are there not many who never think of God, or care\nabout his service? Are there not many who live, to all appearance, as\nunconscious of his existence as we fancy the inferior animals to be? And\nis it not quite clear, that to such persons, God cannot be said to be\ntheir God? He may be the God of heaven and earth, the God of the\nuniverse, the God of Christ's church; but he is not their God, for they\nfeel to have nothing at all to do with him; and, therefore, as he is not\ntheir God, they are, and must be, according to the Scripture, reckoned\namong the dead.\n\nBut God is the God \"of the living.\" That is, as before, all who are\nalive, live unto him; all who live unto him, are alive. \"God said, I am\nthe God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;\" and,\ntherefore, says our Lord, \"Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, are not and\ncannot be dead.\" They cannot be dead, because God owns them: he is not\nashamed to be called their God; therefore, they are not cast out from\nhim; therefore, by necessity, they live. Wonderful, indeed, is the truth\nhere implied, in exact agreement, as we have seen, with the general\nlanguage of Scripture; that, as she who but touched the hem of Christ's\ngarment was, in a moment, relieved from her infirmity, so great was the\nvirtue which went out from him; so they who are not cast out from God,\nbut have any thing whatever to do with him, feel the virtue of his\ngracious presence penetrating their whole nature; because he lives, they\nmust live also.\n\nBehold, then, life and death set before us; not remote, (if a few years\nbe, indeed, to be called remote,) but even now present before us; even\nnow suffered or enjoyed. Even now, we are alive unto God, or dead unto\nGod; and, as we are either the one or the other, so we are, in the\nhighest possible sense of the terms, alive or dead. In the highest\npossible sense of the terms; but who can tell what that highest possible\nsense of the terms is? So much has, indeed, been revealed to us, that we\nknow now that death means a conscious and perpetual death, as life means\na conscious and perpetual life. But greatly, indeed, do we deceive\nourselves, if we fancy that, by having thus much told us, we have also\nrisen to the infinite heights, or descended to the infinite depths,\ncontained in those little words, life and death. They are far higher,\nand far deeper, than ever thought or fancy of man has reached to. But,\neven on the first edge of either, at the visible beginnings of that\ninfinite ascent or descent, there is surely something which may give us\na foretaste of what is beyond. Even to us in this moral state, even to\nyou advanced but so short a way on your very earthly journey, life and\ndeath have a meaning: to be dead unto God, or to be alive to him, are\nthings perceptibly different.\n\nFor, let me ask of those who think least of God, who are most separate\nfrom him, and most without him, whether there is not now actually,\nperceptibly, in their state, something of the coldness, the loneliness,\nthe fearfulness of death? I do not ask them whether they are made\nunhappy by the fear of God's anger; of course they are not: for they who\nfear God are not dead to him, nor he to them. The thought of him gives\nthem no disquiet at all; this is the very point we start from. But I\nwould ask them whether they know what it is to feel God's blessing. For\ninstance: we all of us have our troubles of some sort or other, our\ndisappointments, if not our sorrows. In these troubles, in these\ndisappointments,--I care not how small they may be,--have they known\nwhat it is to feel that God's hand is over them; that these little\nannoyances are but his fatherly correction; that he is all the time\nloving us, and supporting us? In seasons of joy, such, as they taste\nvery often, have they known what it is to feel that they are tasting the\nkindness of their heavenly Father, that their good things come from his\nhand, and are but an infinitely slight foretaste of his love? Sickness,\ndanger,--I know that they come to many of us but rarely; but if we have\nknown them, or at least sickness, even in its lighter form, if not in\nits graver,--have we felt what it is to know that we are in our Father's\nhands, that he is with us, and will be with us to the end; that nothing\ncan hurt those whom he loves? Surely, then, if we have never tasted\nanything of this: if in trouble, or in joy, or in sickness, we are left\nwholly to ourselves, to bear as we can, and enjoy as we can; if there is\nno voice that ever speaks out of the heights and the depths around us,\nto give any answer to our own; if we are thus left to ourselves in this\nvast world,--there is in this a coldness and a loneliness; and whenever\nwe come to be, of necessity, driven to be with our own hearts alone, the\ncoldness and the loneliness must be felt. But consider that the things\nwhich, we see around us cannot remain with us, nor we with them. The\ncoldness and loneliness of the world, without God, must be felt more and\nmore as life wears on: in every change of our own state, in every\nseparation from or loss of a friend, in every more sensible weakness of\nour own bodies, in every additional experience of the uncertainty of our\nown counsels,--the deathlike feeling will come upon us more and more\nstrongly: we shall gain more of that fearful knowledge which tells us\nthat \"God is not the God of the dead.\"\n\nAnd so, also, the blessed knowledge that he is the God \"of the living\"\ngrows upon those who are truly alive. Surely he \"is not far from every\none of us.\" No occasion of life fails to remind those who live unto him,\nthat he is their God, and that they are his children. On light occasions\nor on grave ones, in sorrow and in joy, still the warmth of his love is\nspread, as it were, all through the atmosphere of their lives: they for\never feel his blessing. And if it fills them with joy unspeakable even\nnow, when they so often feel how little they deserve it; if they delight\nstill in being with God, and in living to him, let them be sure that\nthey have in themselves the unerring witness of life eternal: God is the\nGod of the living, and all who are with him must live.\n\nHard it is, I well know, to bring this home, in any degree, to the minds\nof those who are dead: for it is of the very nature of the dead that\nthey can hear no words of life. But it has happened that, even whilst\nwriting what I have just been uttering to you, the news reached me that\none, who two months ago was one of your number, who this very half-year\nhas shared in all the business and amusements of this place, is passed\nalready into that state where the meanings of the terms life and death\nare become fully revealed. He knows what it is to live unto God, and\nwhat it is to die to him. Those things which are to us unfathomable\nmysteries, are to him all plain: and yet but two months ago he might\nhave thought himself as far from attaining this knowledge as any of us\ncan do. Wherefore it is clear, that these things, life and death, may\nhurry their lesson upon us sooner than we deem of, sooner than we are\nprepared to receive it. And that were indeed awful, if, being dead to\nGod, and yet little feeling it, because of the enjoyments of our worldly\nlife, those enjoyments were on a sudden to be struck away from us, and\nwe should find then that to be dead to God was death, indeed, a death\nfrom which there is no waking, and in which there is no sleeping\nfor ever.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEZEKIEL xiii. 22.\n\n_With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not\nmade sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not\nreturn from his wicked way, by promising him life_.\n\n\nThe verses which immediately precede this, require explanation, but\nperhaps our knowledge is hardly sufficient to enable us to give it\nfully. There are allusions to customs,--to fashions rather,--common\namongst the Israelites at the time, which we can now scarcely do more\nthan guess at; but we may observe, that there was a general practice,\nwhich even God's own prophets were directed often to comply with, of\nenforcing what was said in word by some corresponding outward action, in\nwhich the speaker made himself, as it were, a living image of the idea\nwhich he meant to convey. Thus, when Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, was\nassuring Ahab, that he should drive the Syrians before him, he made\nhimself horns of iron, and said, \"With these shalt thou push the\nSyrians, until thou have consumed them.\" In the same way, it is imagined\nthat the false prophetesses spoken of in the text were in the habit of\nwearing pillows, or cushions, fastened to their arms, and directed those\nwho came to consult them to do the same, as a sign of rest and peace;\nthat they who trusted to them had nothing to fear, but might lie down\nand enjoy themselves at their feasts, or in sleep, with entire security.\nOr, again, if we connect what is said of the pillows with what\nimmediately follows about the kerchiefs put upon the head, we may\nsuppose that both are but parts of a fantastic dress, such as was often\nworn by pretended prophets and fortune-tellers, and which they may have\nmade those wear, also, who came before them. We know that the covering\non the head was, for instance, a part of the ceremonial law of the Roman\naugurs, when they began their divinations. But, however this be, the\nexact understanding of these particular points is not necessary to our\nderiving the lesson of the passage in general. I know that there is\nsomething naturally painful to an active mind in being obliged to\ncontent itself with an indistinct notion, or still more, with no notion\nat all, of the meaning of any words presented to it. But, whilst we\nshould highly value this sensitiveness, as, indeed, few qualities are\nmore essential in the pursuit of truth, yet we must be careful not to\nlet our disappointment carry us too far, so as to pass over a whole\npassage, or portion, of Scripture, as if in despair, because we cannot\nunderstand every part of it. Much of the supposed obscurity of the\nprophets arises from this cause--that we find in them particular\nexpressions and allusions, which, whether from a, fault in the\ntranslation, or from our imperfect knowledge of the times of which the\nprophets speak, and of the language in which they wrote, are certainly\nquite unintelligible. But these are only a few expressions, occurring\nhere and there; and it is a great evil to fancy that their writings, in\ngeneral, are not to be understood, because of the difficulty of\nparticular passages in them. Thus, with the very chapter of which we are\nnow speaking, the expression to which I have alluded can only be\nuncertainly interpreted, yet the lesson of the chapter, as a whole, is\nperfectly clear, notwithstanding. The dress, or fashions, or particular\nrites, of the false prophets of Jerusalem and their votaries, may offer\nno distinct image to our minds; but the evil of their doings, how they\ndeceived others, and were themselves deceived; the points, that is,\nwhich alone concern us practically, these are set before us plainly.\n\"With their lies they made the heart of the righteous sad, whom God had\nnot made sad; and they strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he\nshould not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.\" Where the\nway of life was broad, they strove to make it narrow; and where it was\nnarrow, they strove to make it broad: by their solemn and superstitious\nlies, they frightened and perplexed the good, while, by their lives of\nungodliness, they emboldened and encouraged the wicked.\n\nIt may not, at first sight, seem necessary that these two things should\ngo together; there might be, it seems, either the fault of making the\nheart of the righteous sad, without that of strengthening the hands of\nthe wicked: or there might be the strengthening of the hands of the\nwicked, without making sad the heart of the righteous. And so it\nsometimes has been: there has been a wickedness which has not tried to\nkeep up superstition: there has been a superstition, the supporters of\nwhich have not wilfully encouraged wickedness. Yet, although this has\nbeen so, with respect to the intention of the parties concerned, yet in\ntheir own nature, the tendency of either evil to produce the other is\nsure and universal. We cannot exist without some influences of fear and\nrestraint, on the one hand, and without some indulgence of freedom, on\nthe other. God has provided for both these wants, so to speak, of our\nnature; he has told us whom we should fear, and where we should be\nrestrained, and where, also, we may be safely in freedom: there is the\nfruit forbidden, and the fruit which we may eat freely. But if the\nrestraint and the liberty be either of them put in the wrong place, the\ndouble evil is sure to follow. Restrained in his lawful liberty,\ndebarred from the good and wholesome fruit of the garden, man breaks out\ninto a liberty which is unlawful; he eats of the forbidden fruit, whose\ntaste is death; or, surfeited with an unholy freedom, and let to run\nwild in a space far too vast for his strength to compass, he turns\ncravingly for that support to his weariness which a narrowed range would\nafford him; and he limits himself on that very quarter in which alone he\nmight expatiate freely. Superstition, in fact, is the rest of\nwickedness, and wickedness is the breaking loose of superstition.\n\nBut, however true this may be, are we concerned in it? First of all,\nwhen we find an evil dwelt upon often in the Prophets, and find it dwelt\nupon again by our Lord and his Apostles with no less earnestness, there\nis, at least, a strong presumption, that an evil of this sort is nothing\nlocal or passing, but that it is fixed in man's nature, and is apt to\ngrow up in all times, and in all countries. Now, the double evil spoken\nof in the text, occurs again in the gospel; there we find men spoken of,\nwho, in like manner, insisted upon what was trifling, and were careless\nof what was important; and in the epistles, we find, again, the same\ncharacters holding up as righteous others than those who worked\nrighteousness: men, who spoke lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience\nseared with a hot iron. We may presume, therefore, that this evil is of\nan enduring character; but if we look back to the history of the\nChristian Church, or look around us, the presumption becomes the sad\nconviction of experience.\n\nNor is the evil merely one which exists in the country at large; a thing\nwhich might be fully dwelt upon any where but here. On the contrary, I\nhardly know of an age more exposed to it than youth. There exist in\nyouth, in a very high degree, those opposite feelings of our nature,\nwhich I have before spoken of; a tendency to respect, to follow, to be\nled, on the one hand; and on the other, a lively desire for independence\nand freedom. These feelings often exist in the greatest strength in the\nsame individual; and when they are not each turned in their proper\ndirection, ruin is the consequence. Nothing is more common than to see\ngreat narrowness of mind, great prejudices, and great disorderliness of\nconduct, united in the same person. Nothing is more common than to see\nthe same mind utterly prostrated before some idol of its own, and\nsupporting that idol with the most furious zeal, and at the same time\nutterly rebellious to Christ, and rejecting with scorn the enlightening,\nthe purifying, and the loving influences of Christ's Spirit.\n\nThe idols of various minds are infinitely various, some seducing the\nloftiest natures and some the vilest. But of this we may be sure, that\nevery one of us has a tendency to some one idol or other, if not to\nmany; and our business is especially each to watch, ourselves, lest we\nbe enslaved to our peculiar idol. I will now, however, speak of those\nwhich, tempt the highest minds; which, by their show of sacredness and\nexcellence, make us fancy, that while following them we are following\nChrist. And let none be surprised, if I rank among idols many things,\nwhich, in themselves and in their proper use and order, are indeed to be\nloved and reverenced. It was most right to respect the Apostle Peter,\nand listen to his word; but that great Apostle would have been ruin to\nCornelius, and not salvation, if he had suffered him, without reproof,\nto fall down before him, and render to him the service due to Christ\nalone. How many good and pious feelings must have been awakened from age\nto age in many minds, at the sight of the brazen serpent on the pole,\nthe memorial of their fathers' deliverance in the wilderness! But when\nthis awakening, this solemn memorial was corrupted into an idol, when\nmen bowed down before it in superstition, it was the part of true piety\nto do as Hezekiah did, to dash it, notwithstanding all its solemn\nassociations, into a thousand pieces.\n\nThus things good, things noble, things sacred, may all become idols. To\nsome minds truth is an idol, to others justice, to others charity or\nbenevolence; and others are beguiled by objects of a different sort of\nsacredness: some have made Christ's mother their idol; some, Christ's\nservants; some, again, Christ's sacraments, and Christ's own body, the\nChurch. If these may all be idols, where can we find a name so holy, as\nthat we may surrender up our whole souls to it; before which obedience,\nreverence, without measure, intense humility, most unreserved adoration,\nmay all be duly rendered. One name there is, and one only; one alone in\nheaven and in earth; not truth, not justice, not benevolence, not\nChrist's mother, not his holiest servants, not his blessed sacraments,\nnot his very mystical body, but Himself only, who died for us and rose\nagain, Jesus Christ, both God and Man.\n\nHe is truth, and he is righteousness, and he is love; he gives his grace\nto his sacraments, and his manifold gifts to his Church; whoever hath\nhim hath all things; but if we do not take heed, whenever we turn our\nmind to any other object, we shall make it an idol and lose him. Take\nhim in all his fulness, not as God merely, not as man merely; not in his\nlife on earth only, not in his death only, not in his exaltation at\nGod's right hand only; but in all his fulness, the Christ of God, God\nand Man, our Prophet, our Priest, our King and Lord, redeeming us by his\nblood, sanctifying us by his Spirit; and then worship him and love him\nwith all the heart, and with, all the soul, and with all the strength;\nand we shall see how all evil will be barred, and all good will abound.\nNo man who worships Christ alone, can be a fanatic, nor yet can be a\nmore philosopher; he cannot be bigoted, nor yet can he be indifferent;\nhe cannot be so the slave of what be calls amiable feelings as to cast\ntruth and justice behind him; nor yet can he so pursue truth and justice\nas to lose sight of humbler and softer feelings, self-abasement,\nreverence, devotion. There is no evil tendency in the nature of any one\nof us, which has not its cure in the true worship of Christ our Saviour.\nLet us look into our hearts, and consider their besetting faults. Are we\nindolent, or are we active; are we enthusiastic, or are we cold; zealous\nor indifferent, devout or reasonable; whatever the inclination, or bias\nof our nature be, if we follow its kindred idol, it will be magnified\nand grow on to our ruin; if we worship Christ, it will be pruned and\nchastened, and made to grow up with opposite tendencies, all alike\ntempered, none destroyed; none overgrowing the garden, but all filling\nit with their several fruits; so that it shall be, indeed, the garden of\nthe Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord shall dwell in the midst of it.\n\nAnd who shall dare to make sad the heart of him who is thus drinking\ndaily of the well-spring of righteousness, by telling him that he is not\nyet saved, nor can be, unless he will come and bow down before his idol?\nAnd if, rather than do so, he break the idol in pieces, who shall dare\nto call him profane, or cold in love to his Lord, when it was in his\nvery jealousy for his Lord, and in his full purpose to worship him\nalone, that he threw down all that exalted itself above its due\nproportion against him? And if a man be not so worshipping Christ only,\nwho shall dare to encourage him in his evil way, by magnifying the\nsacredness of his idol, and ascribing to it that healing virtue which\nbelongs to Christ alone?\n\nWhat has been here said might bear to be followed up at far greater\nlength than the present occasion will admit of. But the main point is\none, I think, of no small importance, that all fanaticism and\nsuperstition on the one hand, and all unbelief and coldness of heart on\nthe other, arise from what is in fact idolatry,--the putting some other\nobject, whether it be called a religious or moral one,--and an object\noften in itself very excellent,--in the place of Christ himself, as set\nforth to us fully in the Scriptures. And as no idol can stand in\nChrist's place, or in any way save us, so whoever worships Christ truly\nis preserved from all idols and has life eternal. And if any one demand\nof him further, that he should worship his idol, and tells him that he\nis not safe if he does not; his answer will be rather that he will\nperish if he does; that he is safe, fully safe, and only safe, so long\nas he clings to Christ alone; and that to make anything else necessary\nto his safety, is not only to minister to superstition, but to\nungodliness also; not only to lay on us a yoke which neither our fathers\nnor we were able to bear; but, by the very act of laying this\nunchristian yoke upon us, to tear from us the easy yoke and light burden\nof Christ himself, our Lord and our life.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nADVENT SUNDAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHEBREWS in. 16.\n\n_For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came\nout of Egypt by Moses_.\n\n\nI take this verse as my text, rather than those which immediately go\nbefore or follow it, because it affords one of the most serious\ninstances of mistranslation that are to be met with in the whole New\nTestament. For the true translation of the words is this: \"For who were\nthey who, when they had heard, did provoke? nay, were they not all who\ncame out of Egypt through Moses?\" And then it goes on--\"And with whom\nwas he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose\ncarcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should\nnot enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?\" I call this a\nserious mistranslation, because it lessens the force of the writer's\ncomparison. So far from meaning to say that \"some, but not all did\nprovoke,\" he lays a stress on the universality of the evil: it was not\nonly a few, but the whole people who came out of Egypt, with only the\ntwo individual exceptions of Caleb and Joshua. All the rest who were\ngrown up when they came out of Egypt did provoke God; and the carcases\nof that whole generation, fell in the wilderness.\n\nHad the lesson from the Hebrews been actually chosen for the service of\nthis day, it could hardly have suited it better. For this day is the\nNew-year's day of the Christian year; and it is probably for this reason\nthat the service of the first day of the common year is confined\nentirely to the commemoration of our Lord's circumcision, and takes no\nnotice of the beginning of a new year. It is manifest that it could not\ndo so without confusion: for the first of January is not the beginning\nof the Christian year, but Advent Sunday; the last Sunday of the\nChristian year is not Christmas-day, as it would be this year if we\nreckoned by the common divisions of time; but it is the last Sunday\nafter Trinity. Now, then, we are at the beginning of our year; and well\nit is that, as our trial is now become shorter by another year, as\nanother division of our lives has passed away, we should fix our eyes on\nthat which makes every year so valuable,--the Judgment, for which it\nought to be a preparation. In fact, if we observe, we shall see that\nthese Sundays in Advent are much more regarded by the Church as the\nbeginning of a new year, than as a mere prelude to the celebration of\nthe festival of Christmas. That is, Christmas-day is regarded, so to\nspeak, in a two-fold light, as representing both the comings of our\nLord, his first coming in the flesh, and his second coming to judgment.\nWhen the day actually arrives, it commemorates our Lord's first coming:\nand this is the beginning of the Christian year, historically regarded,\nthat is, so far as it is a commemoration of the several events of our\nLord's life on earth. But before it comes, it is regarded as\ncommemorating our Lord's second coming: and wisely, for his first coming\nrequires now no previous preparation for it; we cannot well put\nourselves into the position of those who lived before Christ appeared.\nBut our whole life is, or ought to be, a preparation for his second\ncoming; and it is this state, of which the season of Advent in the\nChurch services is intended to be the representation.\n\nThere is something striking in the season of the natural year at which\nwe thus celebrate the beginning of another Christian year. It is a true\ntype of our condition, of the insensible manner in which all the changes\nof our lives steal upon us, that nature, at this moment, gives no\noutward signs of beginning: it is a period which does not manifest any\nstriking change in the state of things around us. The Christian Spring\nbegins ere we have reached the half of the natural winter. Nature is not\nbursting into life, but rather preparing itself for a long period of\ndeath. And this is a type of an universal truth, that the signs and\nwarnings which we must look to, must come from within us, not from\nwithout: that neither sky nor earth, will arouse us from our deadly\nslumber, unless we are ourselves aroused already, and more disposed to\nmake warnings for ourselves than to find them.\n\nIf this be true of nature, it is true also of all the efforts of man. As\nnature will give no sign, so man cannot. Let the Church do all that she\nmay; let her keep her solemn anniversaries, and choose out for her\nservices all such passages of Scripture as may be most fitted to impress\nthe lesson which she would teach; still we know that these are alike\npowerless and unheeded; that unless there be in our own minds something\nbeforehand disposed to profit by them, they are but the words of\nunavailing affection, vainly spoken to the ears of the dead.\n\nOh that we would remember this, all of us; that there is no voice in\nnature, no voice in man, that can really awaken the sleeping soul. That\nis the work of a far mightier power, to be sought for with most earnest\nprayers for ourselves and for each other: that the Holy Spirit of God\nwould speak, and would dispose our hearts to hear; that so being\nawakened from death and our ears being truly opened, all things outward\nmay now join in language which we can hear; and nature, and man, life\nand death, things present and things to come, may be but the manifold\nvoices of the Spirit of God, all working for us together for good. Till\nthis be so, we speak in vain; our words neither reach our own hearts,\nnor the hearts of our hearers; they are but recorded in God's book of\njudgment, to be brought forward hereafter for the condemnation of\nus both.\n\nYet we must still speak; for the Spirit of God, who alone works in us\neffectually, works also secretly; we know not when, nor how, nor where.\nBut we know, that as the Father worketh hitherto, and the Son worketh\nhitherto, so the Holy Spirit worketh hitherto, and is still working\ndaily. We know that, every year, he creates in thousands of God's people\nthat work which alone shall abide for ever. We know that in the year\nthat is just past he has done this; that in the year which is just\nbeginning he will do it. Have we not here, also, many in whom he has\nwrought this work? may we not hope, and surely believe, that there are\nmany in whom he is even now preparing to work it?\n\nWe know not who these are; still less do we know, what were the\noccasions which the Holy Spirit so blessed as to work in them his work\nof life. But this we know, that we are bound to minister all the\noccasions which we can; we must not spare our labour, although it is God\nalone who gives the increase. We must speak of life and of death, of\nChrist and of judgment, not forgetting that we speak often, and shall\nspeak, utterly in vain; yet knowing that it is by these very thoughts,\nthough long unheeded, that God's Spirit does in his own good time awaken\nthe heart; he takes of the things of Christ and shows them to us; and\nthen, what was before like a book in a strange language--we saw the\nfigures, but they conveyed no meaning to our minds--becomes, on a\nsudden, instinct with the language of God, which we hear and understand\nas readily as if it were our own tongue wherein we were born.\n\nTherefore, we speak and say, that another year has now dawned upon us;\nand we would remind you, and remember, ourselves, in what words the\nvarious Scriptures of this day's service point out its inestimable\nvalue. \"Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.\" So says St.\nPaul in the epistle of this day; and how blessed are all those amongst\nus who can feel that this is truly said of them! Then, indeed, a new\nyear's day is a day of rejoicing; we are so much nearer that period when\nall care, all anxiety, all painful labour will be for ever ended. But\nthere is other language of a different sort, which, it may be, will suit\nus better. \"I have nourished and brought up children, and they have\nrebelled against me.\" \"Their land is full of idols; they worship the\nwork of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made;\" which\nmeans to us, the work of our own hearts, that which our own fancies and\ndesires have made. \"Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for\nfear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.\" For in the very\ntemple of God, his Church, all manner of profane thoughts and words and\nworks are crowded together; the din of covetousness and worldliness is\nloud and constant, and will ill abide the day of his coming, who will, a\nsecond time, cast out of his temple all that is unclean. And is there\nnot also in us that evil heart of unbelief and disobedience which\ndeparts from the living God? are there not here those who are becoming\ndaily hardened through the deceitfulness of sin? How are they passing\ntheir time in the wilderness, and with what prospects when they come to\nthe end of it? God said, \"I sware in my wrath, that they shall not enter\ninto my rest.\" By the way that they came, by the same shall they return;\nthey shall go back to that bondage from which they were once redeemed,\nand from which they will be redeemed again no more for ever.\n\nThese are some of the passages of this day's service which speaks to us\nat the beginning of this new Christian year. Let me add to all this\nlanguage of warning, the language in which God, by his apostle Paul,\nanswers every one of us, if we ask of him in sincerity of heart, \"Lord,\nwhat wilt thou have me to do?\" He answers, \"The night is far spent, the\nday is at hand: let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and\ndrunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and\nenvying: but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for\nthe flesh, to fulfil the works thereof.\" Now, I grant, that this day, of\nwhich the apostle speaks, has never yet shone so brightly, as he had\nhoped and imagined; clouds have, up to this hour, continually\novershadowed it. I mean, that the lives of Christians have hindered them\nfrom being the light of the world. It has been a light pale and dim, and\ntherefore the works of darkness have continued to abound. But admit\nthis, and what follows? Is it, or can it be, anything else but a more\nearnest desire not to be ourselves children of darkness, lest what we\nsee to have happened in part should happen altogether; namely, that the\nday should never shine on us at all? We see that God's promises have\nbeen in part forfeited; we see that Christ's kingdom has not been what\nit was prophesied it should be. Is not this a solemn warning, that for\nus, too, individually, God's promises may be forfeited? that all we read\nin Scripture of light, and life, and glory, and happiness, should really\nprove to us words only, and no reality? that whereas the promise of\nsalvation has been made to us, we should be in the end, not saved, but\nlost? If, indeed, God's kingdom were shining around us, in its full\nbeauty; if every evil thing were driven out of his temple; if we saw\nnothing but holy lives and happy, the fruits of his Spirit, truth, and\nlove, and joy; then we might be less anxious for ourselves; our course\nwould be far smoother; the very stream would carry us along to the end\nof our voyage without our labour: what evil thoughts would not be\nwithered, and die long ere they could ripen into action, if the very air\nwhich we breathed were of such, keen and heavenly purity! It is because\nall this is not so, that we have need of so much watchfulness; it is\nbecause the faults of every one of us make our brethren's task harder;\nbecause there is not one bad or careless person amongst us who is not a\nhindrance in his brother's path, and does not oblige him to exert\nhimself the more. Therefore, because the day is not bright, but\noverclouded; because it is but too like the night, and too many use it\nas the night for all works of darkness; let us take the more heed that\nwe do not ourselves so mistake it; let us watch each of us the light\nwithin us, lest, indeed, we should wholly stumble; let us put on the\nLord Jesus Christ. You know how often I have dwelt on this; how often I\nhave tried to show that Christ is all in all to us; that to put on\nChrist, is a truer and fuller expression, by far, than if we had been\ntold to put on truth, or holiness, or goodness. It includes all these,\nwith something more, that nothing but itself can give--the sense of\nsafety, and joy unspeakable, in feeling ourselves sheltered in our\nSaviour's arms, and taken even into himself. Assuredly, if we put on the\nLord Jesus Christ, we shall not make provision for the flesh to fulfil\nthe lusts thereof; such a warning would then be wholly unnecessary. Or,\nif we do not like language thus figurative, let us put it, if we will,\ninto the plainest words that shall express the same meaning; let us call\nit praying to Christ, thinking of him, hoping in him, earnestly loving\nhim; these, at least, are words without a figure, which all can surely\nunderstand. Let us be Christ's this year that is now beginning; be his\nservants, be his disciples, be his redeemed in deed; let us live to him,\nand for him; setting him before us every day to do his will, and to live\nin his blessing. Then, indeed, if it be his pleasure that we should\nserve him throughout this year, even to its end, we may repeat, with a\ndeeper feeling of their truth, the words of St. Paul; we may say, when\nnext Advent Sunday shall appear, that now is our salvation nearer than\nwhen we became believers.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHRISTMAS DAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJOHN i. 10.\n\n_He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew\nHim not_.\n\n\nWhen we use ourselves, or hear others use, the term \"mystery,\" as\napplied to things belonging to the gospel, we should do well to consider\nwhat is meant by it. For our common notion of the word mystery is of\nsomething dark; whereas Christ and his gospel are continually spoken of\nas being, above all other things, light. Then come others, and say,\n\"Light and darkness cannot go together: what you call the mysteries of\nChristianity are no part of it, but the fond inventions of man:\nChristianity is all simple and clear:\" and thus they strike away some of\nthe very greatest truths which God has revealed to us. Thus they deal in\nparticular with the great truth declared in the text, that He who made\nthe world visited it in the likeness of man. Now, if this truth were a\nmystery, in the common notion of that term; if it were a thing full of\ndarkness, defying our minds to understand it, or to draw any good from\nit; then, indeed, it would be of little consequence whether we received\nit or no. It is because it is a mystery in a very different sense, in\nthe sense in which the word is used commonly in the Scriptures; that\nis, a thing which was a secret, but which God has been pleased to\nreveal, and to reveal for our benefit, that therefore the loss of it\nwould be the loss of a real blessing, a loss at once of light\nand comfort.\n\nBut we must go a little further, and explain from what this sad\nconfusion in the use of the term \"mystery\" has arisen. There are many\nthings relating to ourselves and to things around us, which by nature we\ncannot understand; and of God we can scarcely understand anything. Now,\nwhile the gospel has revealed much that we did not know before, it yet\nhas not revealed everything: of God, in particular, it has given us much\nmost precious knowledge, yet it has not removed all the veil. It has\nfurnished us with a glass, indeed, to use the apostle's comparison; but\nthe glass, although, a great help, although reflecting a likeness of\nwhat, without it, we could not see at all, is yet a dark and imperfect\nmanner of seeing, compared with, the seeing face to face. So, when the\ngospel tells us that He who made the world visited it in our nature, it\ndoes not indeed enable us yet fully to conceive what He is who made us,\nand then became as one of us; there is still left around the name of God\nthat light inaccessible which is to our imperfections darkness; and so\nfar as we cannot understand or conceive rightly of God, so far it is\ntrue that we cannot understand all that is conveyed in the expression\nthat God was in the world dwelling among us. Yet it is still most true\nthat by the revelation thus made to us we have gained immensely. God, as\nhe is in himself, we cannot understand; but Jesus Christ we can. When we\nare told to love God, if we look to the life and death of Christ, we can\nunderstand and feel how truly he deserves our love; when we are told to\nbe perfect as God is perfect, we have the image of this perfection so\ntruly set before us in his Son Jesus, that it may be well said, \"Whoso\nhath seen Him hath seen the Father;\" and why, then, should we ask with\nPhilip, that \"He should show us the Father?\"\n\nWhat, then, the festival of Christmas presents to us, as distinct from\nthat of Easter, is generally the revelation of God in the flesh. True it\nis, that we may make it, if we will, the same as Easter: that is, we may\ncelebrate it as the birth of our Saviour, of him who died and rose again\nfor us; but then we only celebrate our Lord's birth with reference to\nhis death and resurrection: that is, we make Christmas to be Easter\nunder another name. And so everything relating to our Lord may be made\nto refer to his death and resurrection; for in them consists our\nredemption, and for that reason Easter has ever been considered as the\ngreat festival of the Christian year. But yet apart from this, Christmas\nhas something peculiarly its own: namely, as I said before, the\nrevelation of God in the flesh, not only to make atonement for our\nsins,--which is the peculiar subject of the celebration of the season of\nEaster,--but to give us notions of God at once distinct and lively; to\nenable us to have One in the invisible world, whom we could conceive of\nas distinctly as of a mere man, yet whom we might love with all our\nhearts, and trust with all our hearts, and yet be guilty of no idolatry.\n\nIt is not, then, only as the beginning of an earthly life of little more\nthan thirty years, that we may celebrate the day of our Lord's birth in\nthe flesh. His own words express what this day has brought to us:\n\"Henceforth shall ye see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending\nand descending upon the Son of man.\" The words here, like so many of our\nLord's, are expressed in a parable; but their meaning is not the less\nclear. They allude evidently to Jacob's vision, to the ladder reaching\nfrom earth to heaven, on which the angels were ascending and descending\ncontinually. But this vision is itself a parable; showing, under the\nfigure of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, and the angels going\nup and down on it, a free communication, as it were, between God and\nman, heaven brought nearer to earth, and heavenly things made more\nfamiliar. Now, this is done, in a manner, by every revelation from God;\nmost of all, by the revelation of his Son. Nor is it only by his Spirit\nthat Christ communicates with us even now; though, he is ascended again\ninto heaven, yet the benefits of his having become man, over and above\nthose of his dying and rising again for us, have not yet passed away. It\nis still the man Christ Jesus who brings heaven near to earth, and earth\nnear to heaven.\n\nIt has been well said by Augustine, that babes in Christ should so think\nof the Son of man as not to lose sight of the Son of God; that more\nadvanced Christians should so think of the Son of God as not to lose\nsight of the Son of man. Augustine well understood how the thought of\nthe Son of man is fitted to our weakness; and that the best and most\nadvanced of us in this mortal life are never so strong as to be able to\ndo without it. Have we ever tried this with our children? We tell them\nthat God made them, and takes care of them, and loves them, and hears\ntheir prayers, and knows what is in their hearts, and cannot bear what\nis evil. These are such notions of God as a child requires, and can\nunderstand. But, if we join with them some of those other notions which\nbelong to God as he is in himself; that he is a Spirit, not to be seen,\nnot to be conceived of as in any one place, or in any one form; what do\nwe but embarrass our child's mind, and lessen that sense of near and\ndear relation to God which, our earlier accounts of God had given him?\nYet we must teach him something of this sort, if we would prevent him\nfrom forming unworthy notions of God, such as have been the beginning\nof all idolatry. Here, then, is the blessing of the revelation of God in\nChrist. All that he can understand of God, or love in him, or fear in\nhim--that is to be found in Christ. Christ made him, takes care of him,\ncan hear his prayers, can read his little heart, loves him tenderly; yet\ncannot bear what is evil, and will strictly judge him at the last day.\nBut what we must teach when we speak of God, yet which has a tendency to\nlessen the liveliness of our impressions of him, this has no place when\nwe speak of Christ. Christ has a body, incorruptible and glorified\nindeed, such as they who are Christ's shall also wear at his coming, yet\nstill a body. Christ is not to be seen, indeed, for the clouds have\nreceived him out of our sight: yet he may be conceived of as in one\nplace--at the right hand of God; as in one certain and well-known\nform--the form of the Son of man. Yet let us observe again, and be\nthankful for the perfect wisdom of God. Even while presenting to us God\nin Christ; that is to say, God with all those attributes which we can\nunderstand, and fear, and love; and without those which, throw us, as it\nwere, to an infinite distance, overwhelming our minds, and baffling all\nour conceptions; even then the utmost care is taken to make us remember\nthat God in himself is really that infinite and incomprehensible Being\nto whom we cannot, in our present state, approach; that even his\nmanifestation of himself in Christ Jesus, is one less perfect than we\nshall be permitted to see hereafter; that Christ stands at the right\nhand of the Majesty on high; that he has received from the Father all\nhis kingdom and his glory; finally, that the Father is greater than he,\ninasmuch as any other nature added to the pure and perfect essence of\nGod, must, in a certain measure, if I may venture so to speak, be a\ncoming down to a lower point, from the very and unmixed Divinity.\n\nI have purposely mentioned this last circumstance, although it is not\nthe view that I wish particularly to take to-day, because such passages\nas that which I quoted, where Christ tells his disciples that his Father\nwas greater than he, and many others of the same sort, throughout the\nNew Testament, are sometimes apt to embarrass and perplex us, if we do\nnot consider their peculiar object. It was very necessary, especially at\na time when men were so accustomed to worship their highest gods under\nthe form of men, that whilst the gospel was itself holding out the man\nChrist Jesus as the object of religious faith, and fear, and love, and\nteaching that all power was given to him, in heaven and in earth,--it\nshould, also, guard us against supposing that it meant to represent God\nas, in himself, wearing a human form, or having a nature partaking of\nour infirmities; and, therefore, it always speaks of there being\nsomething in God higher, and more perfect, than could possibly be\nrevealed to man; and for this eternal and infinite, and inconceivable\nBeing, it claims the reserve of our highest thoughts, or, rather, it\ncommands us to believe, that they who shall hereafter see God face to\nface, shall be allowed to see something still greater than is now\nrevealed to us, even in him who is the express image of God, and the\nbrightness of his glory.\n\nBut, now, to return to what I was dwelling on before. It is not only for\nchildren, that the revelation of God in Christ is so valuable; it is\nfitted to the wants of us all, at all times, and under all\ncircumstances. Say, that we are in joy; say, that we are enjoying some\nof the festivities of this season. It is quite plain, that, at whatever\nmoment the thought of God is unwelcome to us, that moment is one of sin\nor unbelief: yet, how can we dare to mix up the notion of the most high\nGod with any earthly merriment, or festivity? Then, if we think of him\nwho was present at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and who worked a\nmiracle for no other object than to increase the enjoyment of that\nmarriage supper, do we not feel how the highest thoughts may be joined\nwith the most common occasions? how we may bring Christ home with, us to\nour social meetings, to bless us, and to sanctify them? Imagine him in\nour feasts as he was in Cana:--we may do it without profaneness; being\nsure, from that example, that he condemns not innocent mirth; that it is\nnot merely because there is a feast, or because friends and neighbours\nare gathered together, that Christ cannot, therefore, be in the midst of\nus. This alone does not drive him away; but, oh consider, with what ears\nwould he have listened to any words of unkindness, of profaneness, or of\nimpurity! with what eyes would he have viewed any intemperance, or\nrevelling; any such, immoderate yielding up of the night to pleasure,\nthat a less portion of the next day can be given to duty and to God!\nEven as he would have heard or seen such things in Cana of Galilee, so\ndoes he hear and see them amongst us; the same gracious eye of love is\non our moderate and permitted enjoyments; the same turning away from,\nthe same firm and just displeasure at every word or deed which turns\npleasure into sin.\n\nBut if I seek for instances to show how God in Christ is brought very\nnear to us, what can I choose more striking than that most solemn act of\nChristian communion to which we are called this day? For, what is there\nin our mortal life, what joy, what sorrow, what feeling elated or\nsubdued, which is not in that communion brought near to Christ to\nreceive his blessing? What is the first and outward thing of which it\nreminds us? Is it not that last supper in Jerusalem, in which men,--the\ntwelve disciples, the first members of our Christian brotherhood,--were\nbrought into such solemn nearness to God, as seems to have begun the\nprivileges of heaven upon earth? They were brought near at once to\nChrist and to one another: united to one another in him, in that double\nbond which, is the perfection at once of our duty and of our happiness.\nAnd so in our communion we, too, draw near to Christ and to each other;\nwe feel--who is there at that moment, at least, that does not\nfeel?--what a tie there is to bind each of us to his brother, when we\ncome to the table of our common Lord. So far, the Lord's Supper is but a\ntype of what every Christian meeting should be: never should any of us\nbe gathered together on any occasion of common life, in our families or\nwith our neighbours; we should sit down to no meal, we should meet in no\ncompany, without having Christ also in the midst of us; without\nremembering what we all are to him, and what we each therefore are to\nour brethren. But when we further recollect what there is in the Lord's\nSupper beyond the mere meeting of Christ and his disciples; what it is\nwhich the bread and the wine commemorate; of what we partake when, as\ntrue Christians, we eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; then we\nshall understand that God indeed is brought very near to us; inasmuch,\nas he who is a Christian, and partakes sincerely of Christian communion,\nis a partaker also of Christ: and as belonging to his body, his living\nspiritual body, the universal Church, receives his share of all those\nblessings, of all that infinite love which the Father shows continually\nto the head of that body, his own well-beloved Son.\n\nSay not then in your hearts, Who can ascend up into heaven, that is, to\nbring Christ down? As on this day, when he took our nature upon him, he\ncame down to abide with us for ever; to abide with, us, even when we\nshould see him with our eyes no more: for whilst he was on earth he so\ntook part in all the concerns of life, in all its duties, its sorrows,\nand its joys, that memory, when looking back on the past, can fancy him\npresent still; and then let the liveliest fancy do its work to the\nutmost, it cannot go beyond the reality; he is present still, for that\nbelongs to his almightiness; he is present with us, because he is God;\nand we can fancy him with us, because he is man. This is the way to\nlessen our distance from God and heaven, by bringing Christ continually\nto us on earth: the sky is closed, and shows no sign; all things\ncontinue as they were from the beginning of the world; evil abounds, and\ntherefore the faith of many waxes cold; but Christ was and is amongst\nus; and we need no surer sign than that sign of the prophet\nJonah--Christ crucified and Christ risen--to make us feel that we may\nlive with God daily upon earth, and doing so, shall live with him for an\neternal life, in a country that cannot pass away.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSUNDAY NEXT BEFORE EASTER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMATTHEW xxvi. 40, 41.\n\n_What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye\nenter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the\nflesh is weak_.\n\n\nThese words, we cannot doubt, have an application to ourselves, and to\nall Christians, far beyond the particular occasion on which they were\nactually spoken. They are, in fact, the words which Christ addresses\ndaily to all of us. Every day, when he sees how often we have gone\nastray from him, he repeats to us, Could ye not watch with me one hour?\nEvery day he commands us to watch and pray, that we enter not into\ntemptation; every day he reminds us, that however willing may be our\nspirits, yet our flesh is weak; and that through that weakness, sin\nprevails over it, and having triumphed over our flesh, proceeds to\nenslave our spirit also.\n\nAnd as the words are applicable to us every day, so also are they in a\nparticular manner suitable now, when the season of Lent is so nearly\nover, and Easter is so fast approaching. Have we been unable to watch,\nwith Christ one hour? Already are the good resolutions with which, we,\nperhaps, began Lent, broken in many instances; and the impressions, if\nany such were made in us, are already weakened. They have been a\nburden, which we have shaken off, because the weakness of our nature\nfound it too heavy to bear. Sad it is to think how often this same\nprocess has been repeated in all time, how often it will be repeated\nto the end.\n\nLet us just review what the course of this process has probably been.\nNow, as the parable of the Sower describes three several sorts of\npersons, who never bring forth, fruit; so in the very same persons,\nthere is at different times something of each of the three characters\nthere described. We, the very same persons, are at one time hard, at\nanother careless, and at another over-busy; although, if compared with,\nother persons, and in the general form of their characters, some are\nhard, and others are careless, and others over-busy; different persons\nhaving different faults predominantly. But even the hardness of the road\nside, although God forbid that it should be our prevailing temper, yet\nsurely it does sometimes exist in too many of us. In common speech, we\ntalk of a person showing a hard temper, meaning, generally, a hard\ntemper towards other men. We have done wrong, but being angry when we\nare reproved for it, we will not acknowledge it at all, and cheat our\nconsciences, by dwelling upon the supposed wrong that has been done to\nus in some over-severity of reproof or punishment, instead of confessing\nand repenting of the original wrong which we ourselves did. But is it\nnot true, that a hard temper towards man is very often, even\nconsciously, a hard temper towards God? Does it never happen, that if\nconscience presents to us the thought of God, whether as a God of\njudgment to terrify us, or as a God of love to melt us, we repel it with\nimpatience, or with sullenness? Does not the heart sometimes almost\nspeak aloud the language of blasphemy: Who is God, that I should mind\nhim? I do not care what may happen, I will not be softened. Do not all\nsorts of unbelieving thoughts pass rapidly through the mind at such\nmoments; first in their less daring form, whispering, as the serpent did\nto Eve, that we shall not surely die; that we shall have time to repent\nby and by; that God will not be so strict a judge as to condemn us for\nsuch a little; that by some means or other, we shall escape? But then\nthey come, also, in their bolder form: What do I or any man know about\nanother world, or God's judgments? may it not be all a fiction, so that\nI have, in reality, nothing to fear? In short, under one form or\nanother, is it not true, that our hearts have sometimes displayed\nactually hardness towards God; that the thought of God has been actually\npresented to our minds, but that we have turned it aside, and have not\nsuffered it to make any impression upon us? And thus, we have not only\nnot watched with Christ according to his command, but have actually told\nhim that we would not. But this has been in our worst temper, certainly;\nit may not have happened,--I trust that it has not happened often. More\ncommonly, I dare say, the fault has been carelessness. We have gone out\nof this place; sacred names have ceased to sound in our ears; sights in\nany degree connected with, holy things have been all withdrawn from us.\nOther sounds and other sights have been before us, and our minds have\nyielded to them altogether. There are minds, indeed, which have no\nspring of thought in themselves; which are quiet, and in truth empty,\ntill some outward objects come to engage them. Take them at a moment\nwhen they are alone, or when there is no very interesting object before\nthem, and ask them of what they are thinking. If the answer were truly\ngiven, such a mind would say, \"Of nothing.\" Certain images may be\nfaintly presented to it; it may be that it is not altogether a blank;\nyet it could not name anything distinctly. No form had been vivid enough\nto produce any corresponding resolution in us; we were, as it were, in a\nstate between sleeping and waking, with neither thoughts nor dreams\ndefinite enough to affect us. This state finds exactly all that it\ndesires in the presence or the near hope of outward objects; the mind\nlives in its daily pursuits, and companions, and amusements. What\nimpressions have been once produced are soon worn away; and in a soil so\nshallow nothing makes a durable impression: everything can, as it were,\nscratch upon its surface, while nothing can strike deeply down within.\n\nOr, again, take the rarer case of those who are over-busy. There are\nminds, undoubtedly, which are as incapable of rest as those of the\ngenerality of men are prone to it; there are minds which enter keenly\ninto everything presented to them by their outward senses, and which,\nwhen their senses cease to supply them, have an inexhaustible source of\nthought within, which furnishes them with abundant matter of reflection\nor of speculation. To such a mind, doing is most delightful; whether it\nbe outward doing, or the mere exercise of thought, either supplies alike\nthe consciousness of power. Where, then, is there room for the less\nobtruding things of God? Into that restless water, another and another\nimage is for ever stepping down, pushing aside and keeping at a distance\nthe sobering reflections of God and of Christ. Alas! the thorns grow so\nvigorously in such a soil, that they altogether choke and kill the seed\nof God's word.\n\nSo, then, we are either asleep, or, if we are awake, we are not waking\nwith Christ. On one side, in that garden of Gethsemane were the\ndisciples sleeping; below, and fast ascending the hill,--not sleeping,\ncertainly, but with lanterns and torches and weapons,--were those whose\nwaking was for evil. Where were they who watched with Christ one hour\nthen,--or where are those who watch with him now?\n\nHOW gently, yet how earnestly, does he call upon us to \"watch and pray,\nlest we enter into temptation.\" To watch and to pray: for of all those\naround him some were sleeping, and none were praying; so that they who\nwatched were not watching with him, but against him. In our careless\nstate of mind the call to us is to watch; in our over-busy state the\ncall to us is to pray; in our hard state there is equal need for both.\nAnd even in our best moods, when we are not hard, nor careless, nor\nover-busy, when we are at once sober and earnest and gentle, then not\nleast does Christ call upon us to watch and to pray, that we may retain\nthat than which else no gleam of April sunshine was ever more fleeting;\nthat we may perfect that which else is of the earth, earthly, and when\nwe lie down in the dust will wither and come to dust also.\n\nJesus Christ brought life and immortality, it is said, to light through\nthe gospel. He brought life and immortality to light:--is this indeed\ntrue as far as we are concerned? What do we think would be the\ndifference in this point between many of us--who will dare say how\nmany?--and a school, I will not say of Jewish, but even of Greek or\nRoman or Egyptian boys, eighteen hundred, or twenty-four hundred, or\nthree or four thousand years ago? Compare us at our worship with them,\nand then, I grant, the difference would appear enormous. We have no\nimages, making the glory of the incorruptible God like to corruptible\nman; we have no vain stream of incense; no shedding of the blood of\nbulls and calves in sacrifice: the hymns which are sung here are not\nvain repetitions or impious fables, which gave no word of answer to\nthose questions which it most concerns mankind to know. Here, indeed,\nJesus Christ is truly set forth, crucified among us; here life and\nimmortality are brought to light. But follow us out of this place,--to\nour respective pursuits and amusements, to our social meetings, or our\ntimes of solitary thought,--and wherein do we seem to see life and\nimmortality more brightly revealed than to those heathen schools of old?\nDo we enjoy any worldly good less keenly, or less shrink from any\nworldly evil? Death, which to the heathen view was the end of all\nthings, is to us (so our language goes) the gate of life. Do we think of\nit with more hope and less fear than the heathen did? Christ has risen,\nand has reconciled us to God. Is God more to us?--God now revealed to us\nas our reconciled Father--do we oftener think of him, do we love him\nbetter, than he was thought of and loved in those heathen schools, which\nhad Homer's poetry for their only gospel? We talk of light, of\nrevelation, of the knowledge of God, while verily and really we are\nwalking, not in light, but in darkness: not in knowledge of God, but in\nblindness and hardness of heart.\n\n\"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.\" How great is the\nloving-kindness of these words,--how gently does Christ bear with the\nweakness of his disciples! But this thought may be the most blessed or\nthe most dangerous thought in the world; the most blessed if it touches\nus with love, the most dangerous if it emboldens us in sin. He is full\nof loving-kindness, full of long-suffering; for days, and weeks, and\nmonths, and years he bears with us: we grieve him, and he entreats; we\ncrucify him afresh, yet he will not come down from the cross in power\nand majesty; he endures and spares. So it is for days, and months, and\nyears; for some years it may be to most of us,--for many years to some\nof the youngest. There may be some here who may go on grieving Christ,\nand crucifying him afresh, for as much as seventy years; and he will\nbear with them all that time, and his sun will daily shine upon them,\nand his creatures and his word will minister to their pleasure; and he\nhimself will say nothing to them but to entreat them to turn and be\nsaved. This may last, I say, to some amongst us for seventy years; to\nothers it may last fifty; to many of us it may last for forty, or for\nthirty; none of us, perhaps, are so old but that it may last with us\ntwenty, or at the least ten. Such is the prospect before us, if we like\nit: not to be depended upon with certainty, it is true, but yet to be\nregarded as probable. But as these ten, or twenty, or fifty, or seventy\nyears pass on, Christ will still spare us, but his voice of entreaty\nwill be less often heard; the distance between him and us will be\nconsciously wider. From one place after another where we once used\nsometimes to see him, he will have departed; year after year some object\nwhich used once to catch the light from heaven, will have become\novergrown, and will lie constantly in gloom; year after year the world\nwill become to us more entirely devoid of God. If sorrow, or some\nsoftening joy ever turns our minds towards Christ, we shall be startled\nat perceiving there is something which keeps us from him, that we cannot\nearnestly believe in him; that if we speak of loving him, our hearts,\nwhich can still love earthly things, feel that the words are but\nmockery. Alas, alas! the increased weakness of our flesh, has destroyed\nall the power of our spirit, and almost all its willingness: it is bound\nwith chains which it cannot break, and, indeed, scarcely desires to\nbreak. Redemption, Salvation, Victory,--what words are these when\napplied to that enslaved, that lost, that utterly overthrown and\nvanquished soul, which sin is leading in triumph now, and which will\nspeedily be given over to walk for ever as a captive in the eternal\ntriumph of death!\n\nNot one word of what I have said is raised beyond the simplest\nexpression of truth; this is our portion if we will not watch with\nChrist. We know how often we have failed to do so, either sleeping in\ncarelessness, or being busy and wakeful, but not with him or for him.\nStill he calls us to watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation; to\nmark our lives and actions; to mark them often; to see whether we have\ndone well or ill in the month past, or in the week past, or in the day\npast; to consider whether we are better than we were, or worse; whether\nwe think Christ loves us better, or worse; whether we are more or less\ncold towards him. I know not what else can be called watching with\nChrist than such a looking into ourselves as we are in his sight. It is\nvery hard to be done;--yes, it is hard--harder than anything probably\nwhich we ever attempted before; and, therefore, we must pray withal for\nhis help, whose strength is perfected in our weakness. And if it be so\nhard, and we have need so greatly to pray for God's help, should we not\nall also be anxious to help one another? And knowing, as we do from our\nown consciences, how difficult it is to watch with Christ, and how\nthankful we should be to any one who were to make it easier to us,\nshould we not be sure that our neighbour is in like case with ourselves;\nthat our help may be as useful to him as we feel that his would be to\nus? This is our bounden duty of love towards one another; what then\nshould be said of us if we not only neglect this duty, but do the very\ncontrary to it; if we actually help the evil in our brother's heart to\ndestroy him more entirely; if we will not watch with Christ ourselves,\nand strive to prevent others from doing so?\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXIV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGOOD FRIDAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nROMANS v. 8.\n\n_God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners,\nChrist died for us_.\n\n\nWe all remember the story in the Gospel, of the different treatment\nwhich our Lord met with in the same house, from the Pharisee, who had\ninvited him into it, and from the woman who came in and knelt at his\nfeet, and kissed them, and bathed them with her tears. Our Lord\naccounted for the difference in these words, \"To whom little is\nforgiven, the same loveth little;\" which means to speak of the sense or\nfeeling in the person's own mind, \"He who feels that little is or needs\nto be forgiven him, he also loves little.\" And this same difference\nwhich existed toward him when he was present on earth, exists no less\nnow, whenever he is brought before our thoughts. The same sort of\npersons who saw him with indifference, think of him also with\nindifference; they who saw him with love, think of him also with love.\nThere is no art, no power in the world, which can give an interest to\nwords spoken concerning him, for those who feel that little is and that\nlittle needs to be forgiven them, or to those who never consider about\ntheir being forgiven at all. To such, this day, with its services, what\nthey hear from the Scriptures, or what they hear from men, must be\nalike a matter of indifference: it is not possible that it should be\notherwise. Yet, God forbid that we should design what we are saying this\nday only for a certain few of our congregation, as if the rest neither\nwould nor could be interested in it. So long as any one is careless, he\ncannot, it is true, be interested about the things of Christ; but who\ncan say at what moment, through God's grace, he may cease to be\ncareless? Is it too much to say, that scarcely a service is performed in\nany congregation in the land, which does not awaken an interest in some\none who before was indifferent? I do rot say a deep interest, nor a\nlasting one, but an interest; there is a thought, a heeding, an\ninclination of the mind to listen, created probably by the Church\nservices in some one or other, every time that they are performed. As we\nnever can know in whom this may be so created, as all have great need\nthat it should be created, as all are deeply concerned whether they feel\nthat they are so or no, so we speak to all alike; and if the language\ndoes pass over their ears like an unknown or indistinct sound, the fault\nand the loss are theirs; but the Church has borne her witness, and has\nso far done her duty.\n\nBut again, for ears not careless, but most interested; for hearts to\nwhom Christ is more than all in the world besides; for minds, before\nwhom the wisdom of the gospel is ever growing, rising to a loftier\nheight, and striking downwards to a depth more profound,--yet without\nend in its height or its depth; is there not, also, a difficulty in\nspeaking to them of that great thing which the Church celebrates to-day?\nIs there no difficulty in awakening their interest, or rather how can we\nescape even from wearying or repelling them, when their own affections\nand deep thoughts must find all words of man, whether of themselves or\nothers, infinitely unworthy to express either the one or the other? To\nsuch, then, the words of the preacher may be no more than music without\nany words at all; which does but serve to lead and accompany our own\nthoughts, without distinctly suggesting any thoughts of another to\ninterrupt the workings of our own minds. We would speak of Christ's\ndeath; most good it is for us and for you to think upon it; so far as\nour words suit the current of your own thoughts, use them and listen to\nthem; so far as they are a too unworthy expression of what we ought to\nthink and feel, follow your own reflections, and let the words neither\noffend you nor distract you.\n\nI would endeavour just to touch, upon some of the purposes for which the\nScripture tells us that Christ died, and for which his death was\ndeclared to be the great object of our faith. This done in the simplest\nand fewest words will best show the infinite greatness of the subject;\nand how truly it is, so to speak, the central point of Christianity.\n\nFirst of all, Christ died as a proper sacrifice for sin; as a sacrifice,\nthe virtue of which, is altogether distinct from our knowledge of it, or\nfrom any effect which it has a tendency to produce on our own minds. We\nare forgiven for his sake; we are acquitted through his death, and\nthrough faith in his blood. What a view does this open, partially,\nindeed,--for what mortal eye can reach to the end of it?--of the evil of\nsin, and of God's love! of what God's justice required, and of what\nGod's love fulfilled! This great sacrifice was made once, but it will\nnot be made again; for those who despise this there remains no more\noffering for sin, but their sin abideth with them for ever.\n\nSecondly, Christ's death is revealed to us as a motive capable of\novercoming all temptations to evil. \"How much more shall the blood of\nChrist purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?\"\n\"He suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us\nto God;\" that is, that a consideration of what Christ's death declares\nto us should have power to melt the hardest heart, and to sober the\nlightest: that, when we think of Christ dying, dying for us, and so\npurchasing for us the forgiveness of sins, and everlasting life, such a\nlove, and such a prospect of peace with God, and of glory, should in the\nhighest degree soften and enkindle us; and from love for him, and\nconfidence of hope through the prospect which he has given us, we should\nbe able to overcome all temptations. \"I am persuaded,\" says St. Paul,\n\"that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor\npowers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth,\nnor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of\nGod, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.\"\n\nThirdly, Christ suffered for as, leaving us an example that we should\nfollow his steps. He left us an example of all meekness, and patience,\nand humility; he left us an example of perfect submission to God's will;\nhe left us an infinite comfort by letting us feel when we are in any\ntrouble, or pain, or affliction, that he was troubled too; that he knew\npain, and endured affliction. Above all, in that hour which must come to\nall of us, he has left us the greatest of all supports;--for he endured\nto die; and we may enter with less fear into the darkness of the grave,\nfor even there Christ has been for our sakes, and arose from out of it a\nconqueror.\n\nFourthly, Christ died that he might gather together in one the children\nof God that were scattered abroad; he died to purchase to himself his\nuniversal Church. So it is said in the Scriptures: and on this\nparticular purpose of his death, it may not be amiss to dwell, for none\nso needs to be held in remembrance. Many there are, and ever have been,\nwho have rested their whole hope towards God on his sacrifice; many who\nhave learnt from his cross to overcome sin; from his resurrection to\novercome the world; many who, amidst all the troubles of life, and in\nthe hour of death, have been supported by the thought of his example.\nBut where is his universal Church? where the company of God's children\ngathered together into one? where is the city set upon the hill, that\ncannot be hid? where is the visible kingdom of God, where all its people\nare striving under one Divine Head, against sin, the world, and the\ndevil? This is the sign which we look for and cannot find; this is the\nfulfilment of the prophecies for which we seem destined to wait in vain.\n\nAnd what if, on the contrary, that which is called the Church act rather\nthe part of the world; if our worst foes be truly those of our own\nhousehold: if they who should have been for our help, be rather an\noccasion of falling: if one of our greatest difficulties in following\nChrist steadily, arise from the total want of encouragement, yea, often\nfrom the direct opposition of those who are themselves pledged to follow\nhim to the death; if that Church, which was to have been the clearest\nsign to the world of the truth of Christ's gospel, be now, in many\nrespects, rather a stumbling-block to the adversary and unbeliever, so\nthat the name of God is through us blasphemed among the heathen, rather\nthan glorified; may we not humble ourselves before God in sorrow and in\nshame? and must we not confess, that through our sin, and the sin of our\nfathers, Christ, in respect of this one purpose of his death, has as yet\ndied in vain?\n\nIsrael after the flesh, lamenting their Jerusalem which is now not\ntheirs, and mourning over their ruined temple, in all their synagogues\nrepeat constantly the prayer, O Lord, build thou the walls of Jerusalem!\nO Lord, build! O Lord, build! O Lord, build! is the solemn chorus,\nmarking by its repetition the earnestness of their desire. And should\nnot this be the prayer of the Israel of God, scattered now as they are\ninto their thousand divided and corrupted synagogues, and no token to be\nseen of the pure and universal Church, the living temple of the Spirit\nof God; should not we too, privately and publicly, join in the prayer of\nthe earthly Israel, and pray that Christ would build for us the walls of\nour true Jerusalem? For only think what it would be, if Christ's Church\nexisted more than in name; consider what it would be if baptism were a\nreal bond; if we looked on one another as brethren, redeemed by one\nransom, pledged to one service; if we bore with one another's\nweaknesses; if we helped one another's endeavours; if each saw and\nheard, in the words and life of his neighbour, an image of Christ, and a\npledge of the truth of his promises. Consider what it would be, if, with\nno quarrels, with no jealousies, with no unkindness, we sought not every\nman his own, but every man also another's welfare; as true members one\nof another,--of one body, of which Christ is the head. Consider what it\nwould be, if our judgments of men and things were like Christ's\njudgments; neither strengthening the heart of the careless and sinful by\nour laxity, nor making sad the heart of God's true servant by our\nuncharitableness; not putting little things in the place of great, nor\ngreat things in the place of little; not neglecting the unity of the\nSpirit; not stickling for a sameness in the form. Or, if we carry our\nviews a little wider; if we look out upon the world at large, and hear\nof rumours of wars, and see the signs of internal disorders, and\nperhaps may think that the clouds are gathering which, herald one of the\ncomings of the Son of man to judgment, whether the last of all or not it\nwere vain to ask; how blessed would it be, if we could see such an ark\nof Christ's Church as should float visibly upon, the stormy waters;\ngathering within it, in peace and safety, men of various dispositions\nand conditions, and opinions; those who held much of truth, and those\nwho had mixed with it much of error: those whom Christ would call clean,\nand those, too, whom some of their brethren call unclean, but whom\nChrist has redeemed, and will save no less than their despisers; all, in\nshort, who fled from sin and from the world to Christ, and to the\ncompany of Christ's people! O if we could but see such an ark preparing\nwhile God's long-suffering yet withholds the flood! O that all God's\nscattered and divided children would join together in one earnest\nprayer, O Lord, build thou the walls of Jerusalem! O Lord, build! O\nLord, build! O Lord, build!\n\nYet, for this, among other purposes of mercy, did the Son of God, as on\nthis day, suffer death upon the cross: he died that we might be one in\nhim. Let us turn, then, from the thought of the general temple in ruins,\nand let us see whether we cannot, at any rate, within the walls of our\nown little particular congregation, fulfil also this object of Christ's\ndeath, and be one in him. Let us consider one another, to provoke unto\nlove and to good works: we too often consider one another for the very\ncontrary purpose, to provoke to contempt or ill-will. True it is, that\nif we look for it we can find much of evil in our brethren, and they can\nfind much also in us; and we might become all haters of one another, all\nin some sort deserving to be hated. But where is he who is entitled to\nhate another's evil when he has evil in himself; and when Christ, who\nhad none, did not hate the evil of us all, but rather died to save it?\nAnd is it not true also, that, if we look for it, we can also find in\nevery one something to love? something, undoubtedly, even in him who has\nin himself least: but much, infinitely much in all, when we look upon\nthem as Christ's redeemed. Not more beautifully than truly has it been\nsaid, that Christian souls--\n\n     \"Though worn and soiled by sinful clay,\n     Are yet, to eyes that see them true,\n     All glistening with baptismal dew.\"\n\nThey have the seal of belonging to Christ; they are his and our\nbrethren. And, as his latest command, and his beloved Apostle's also,\nwas that we should love one another; so, if we would bring all our\nsolemn thoughts of Christ's death to one point, and endeavour to derive\nfrom it some one particular lesson for our daily lives, I know not that\nany would be more needed or better for us, than that we should\nespecially apply the thought of Christ dying on the cross for us to\nsoften our angry, and proud, and selfish feelings; to restrain us from\nangry or sneering words; from unkind, offensive, rude, or insulting\nactions; to excite us to gentleness, courtesy, kindness; remembering\nthat he, be he who he may, whom we allow ourselves to despise, or to\ndislike, or to annoy, or to neglect, was one so precious in Christ's\nsight, that he laid down his life for his sake, and invites him to be\nfor ever with, him and with his Father.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEASTER DAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJOHN xx. 20.\n\n_Then the disciples went away again unto their own home_.\n\n\nWith this verse ends the portion of the scripture chosen for the gospel\nin this morning's service. It finishes the account of the visit of Peter\nand John to the sepulchre; and, therefore, the close of the extract at\nthis point is sufficiently natural. Yet the effect of the quiet tone of\nthese words, just following the account of the greatest event which\nearth has ever witnessed, is, I think, singularly impressive; the more\nso when we remember that they were written by one of the very persons,\nwhose visit had been just described; and that the writer, therefore,\ncould tell full well, to how intense an interest there had succeeded\nthat solemn calm. They went away from the very sight, if I may so speak,\nof Christ risen, to their own homes. And what thoughts do we suppose\nthat they carried with them? Let us endeavour to recall them, for our\nbenefit, also, who, like them, are going, as it were, to the ordinary\ntenure of our daily lives from this day's high solemnity.\n\nThe disciples went away to their own homes; and there they waited,\neither in Jerusalem or in Galilee, pursuing, as we find from the last\nchapter of St. John, their common occupations, till, after their Lord's\nascension, power was given them from on high, and the great work of\ntheir apostleship began. During this period, Christ appeared to them\nseveral times: he conversed with them, he ate and drank with them: but\nhe did not live continually with them, as he had done before his\ncrucifixion: he did not take them about with him as before, while he was\nperforming the part of the great prophet of the house of Israel. They\nwere now at their own homes waiting for his call to more active duties.\nThey had seen him dead, and they had seen, him risen, and they were\nreceiving into their souls all the lessons of his life and death and\nresurrection, brought before them, and impressed upon them by that Holy\nSpirit, who, according to Christ's promise, was to take of the things\nwhich are Christ's, and to show them to Christ's disciples.\n\nIt is true that there came upon them, after this, an especial visitation\nof the Spirit of power, to fit them for their particular work of\napostles or messengers to mankind. Having been converted themselves,\nthey were to strengthen their brethren. And as this especial visitation\nof the Holy Spirit was given to them only, and to those on whom they\nthemselves laid their hands, so none have ever since been called to that\nparticular work to which they were called, in any thing of the same\ndegree of fulness. What is peculiar to them as apostles is not\napplicable exactly to us; but we are all concerned in what belongs to\nthem as Christians: in this respect, their case is ours; and they, when\nat their own homes, and engaged in their own callings, stand in the same\nsituation as we all.\n\nWe may, however, still make a two-fold division; we may regard the\napostles going away to their own homes, as a temporary thing, as a mere\nterm of preparation for the duties which they were afterwards called to;\nor we may look upon it as complete so far as earth is concerned, since,\ntaking them as Christians only and not as apostles, they might have so\nlived on to the end of their lives, having received all those helps\nwhich were needed for their own personal salvation, and having only to\nuse them daily for their soul's benefit. This same distinction we may\napply to ourselves. We may consider ourselves as going to our own homes\nfor a time only, awaiting our call to active life; or we may consider\nourselves as withdrawing, after every celebration of Christ's\nresurrection, to that round of daily duties which on earth shall never\nalter; and to which all the helps derived from our communion with Christ\nare to be applied, with nothing future, so for as earth is concerned,\nfor which we may need them. So then, of whatever age we may be, what is\nsaid of the apostles in the text may apply to us also: after having\nwitnessed, as it were, Christ's resurrection, we go away to our own\nhomes. Let us first take that part of the text which is common to us\nall, though not in the same degree--the having been witnesses of\nChrist's resurrection. John and Peter found him not in the sepulchre;\nthey found the linen clothes and the napkin lying there, but he was\ngone. And upon this, as John assures us, both for himself and his\ncompanion, \"they believed.\" They believed, we should observe, when as\nyet they had no more seen Jesus himself after his resurrection, than we\nLave now. They only knew that he had been dead, and that he was not in\nthe sepulchre. And this we know also; we have not seen him, indeed,\nsince his resurrection: but we are sure he is not in the sepulchre. We\nare sure that the malice of his enemies did not do its work: we are\nsure, for we are ourselves witnesses of it, that that name, and that\nword, which they hoped would have been destroyed for ever, like the\nnames of many, not only of false prophets and deceivers, but even of\ngood men and of wise, have not perished, but have brought forth fruit\nmore abundantly, from the very cause that was intended to put them out.\nChrist's gospel, assuredly, is a living thing, full of vigour and full\nof power; it has worked mightily for good, and is working; it is so full\nof blessing, it tends so largely towards the happiness that is enjoyed\nupon earth, that we are quite sure it is not lying still buried in\nChrist's sepulchre.\n\nThey (the two disciples) then went away believing, because they found\nthat he was not in the sepulchre. But Mary Magdalene came and told them,\nthat she had seen him risen, and had heard his voice with her ears. What\nshe told Peter and John, Peter and John are now telling to us. They tell\nus that they have heard him, have seen him with their eyes, have looked\nupon him, yea, that their hands have handled him. They tell us even more\nthan Mary Magdalene told them; for she had not been allowed to touch\nhim. We may well trust their testimony, as they trusted hers, being\nquite ready indeed to believe that he was alive, because they had found\nthat he was not amongst the dead. And so we, finding that he is not\namongst the dead, seeing and knowing the fruits of his gospel, the\nliving and ever increasing fruits of it, may well believe that its\nauthor is risen, and that the pains of death were loosed from off him,\nbecause it was not possible that he should be holden by them.\n\nIn this way, we, like the two disciples, may be all said to be witnesses\nof Christ's resurrection. May it not be said still more of those amongst\nus who assembled this morning round Christ's table, to keep alive the\nmemory of his death; when we partook of that bread, and drank of that\ncup, of which so many thousands and millions, in every age and in every\nland, have eaten and drunken, all receiving them, with nearly the same\nwords,--the body that was given for us, the blood that was shed for\nus,--all, making allowances for human weakness, finding in that\ncommunion the peace and the strength of God; all alike receiving it with\npenitent hearts, and with faith, and purposes of good for the time to\ncome? Did we not then witness that Christ is not perished? that he has\nbeen ever, and still is, mighty to save? That command given to twelve\npersons, in an obscure chamber in Jerusalem, by one who, the next day,\nwas to die as a malefactor, has been, and is obeyed from one end of the\nworld to another; and wherever it has been obeyed, there, in proportion\nto the sincerity of the obedience, has been the fulness of the blessing.\n\nBut this is now past, as with the two disciples, and we are going again\nto our own homes. There, neither the empty sepulchre nor the risen\nSaviour are present before us, but common scenes and familiar\noccupations, which, in themselves have nothing in them of Christ. So it\nmust be; we cannot be always within these walls; we cannot always be\nengaged in public prayer; we cannot always be hearing Christ's word, nor\npartaking of his communion; we must be going about our several works,\nand must be busied in them; some of us in preparation for other work to\ncome, others to go on till the end of their lives with this only. May we\nnot hope that Christ, and Christ's Spirit, will visit us the while in\nthese our daily callings, as he came to his disciples Peter and John,\nwhen following their business as fishers on the lake of Gennesareth?\n\nHow can we get him to visit us? There is one answer--by prayer and by\nwatchfulness. By prayer, whether we are in our preparatory state, or our\nfixed one; by prayer, and I think I may add, by praying in our own\nwords. Of course, when we pray together, some of us must join in the\nwords of others; and it makes little difference, whether those words be\nspoken or read. But when we pray alone, some, perhaps, may still use\nnone but prayers made by others, especially the Lord's prayer. We should\nremember, however, that the Lord's prayer was given for this very\npurpose, to teach us how to pray for ourselves. But it does not do this,\nif we use it alone, and still more, if we use it without understanding\nit. If we do understand it, and study it, it will indeed teach us to\npray; it will show us what we most need in prayer, and what are our\ngreatest evils; but surely it may be said, that no man ever learnt this\nlesson well without wishing to practise it; no man ever used the Lord's\nprayer with understanding and with earnestness, without adding to it\nothers of his own. And this is not a trifling matter. We know the\ndifficulty of attending in prayer; and if we use the words of others\nonly, which we must, therefore, repeat from memory, it is perfectly\npossible to say them over without really joining with them in our minds:\nwe may say them over to ourselves, and be actually thinking of other\nthings the while. And the same thing holds good, of course, even with\nprayers that we have made ourselves, if we accustom ourselves to repeat\nthem without alteration; they then become, in fact, the work of another\nthan our actual mind, and may be repeated by memory alone. Therefore, it\nseems to be of consequence to vary the words, and even the matter of our\nprivate prayers, that so we may not deceive ourselves, by repeating\nmerely, when we fancy that we are praying. Ten words actually made by\nourselves at the moment, and not remembered, are a real prayer; for it\nis not hypocrisy that is the most common danger; our temper, when we are\non our knees, is apt indeed to be careless, but not, I hope and believe,\ndeceitful. This, of course, must be well known to a very large\nproportion of us; but, perhaps, there are some to whom it may be\nuseful; some to whom the advice may not yet have suggested itself, that\nthey should make their own prayers, in part, at least, whenever they\nkneel down to their private devotions.\n\nAnd this sort of prayer, with God's blessing, is likely to make us\nwatchful. We rise in the morning: we say some prayers of our own; we\nhear others read to us; and yet it is possible that we may not have\nreally prayed ourselves in either case; we may not have brought\nourselves truly into the presence of God. Hence our true condition, with\nall its dangers, has not been brought before our minds; the need of\nwatchfulness has not been shown to us. But with real prayer of our own\nhearts' making it is different; God is then present to us, and sin and\nrighteousness: our dream of carelessness is, for a moment at least,\nbroken. No doubt it is but too easy to dream again; yet still an\nopportunity of exerting ourselves to keep awake is given us; we are\nroused to consciousness of our situation; and that, at any rate, renders\nexertion possible. There is no doubt that souls are most commonly lost\nby this continued dreaming, till at length, when seemingly awake (they\nare not so really), they are like men who answer to the call that would\narouse them, but they answer, in fact, unconsciously. We cannot tell for\nourselves or others any way by which our souls shall certainly be saved,\nin spite of carelessness; or any way by which, carelessness shall be\novercome necessarily; all that can be done is, to point out how it may\nbe overcome, by what means the soul may be helped in its endeavours; not\nhow those endeavours and holy desires may be rendered needless.\n\nThus, then, we may gain Christ to visit us at our own homes and in our\ncommon callings, when we are returned to them. And that difference which\nI spoke of as existing between us, that some of us are waiting for\nChrist's call to a higher field of action, while others are engaged in\nthat sort of duty which will last their lives, I know not that\nthis--though it be often important, and though I am often obliged to\ndwell on it--need enter into our considerations to-day. Rather, perhaps,\nmay we overlook this difference, and feel that all of us here\nassembled--those in their state of earliest preparation for after\nduties; those to whom that earliest state is passed away, and who are\nentered into another state, in part preparatory, in part partaking of\nthe character of actual life; and those also whose preparation, speaking\nof earth, only, is completed altogether, who must be doing, and whose\ntime even of doing is far advanced--that all of us have in truth one\ngreat call yet before us: and that, with respect to that, we are all, as\nit were, preparing still. And for that great call, common to all of us,\nwe need all the same common readiness; and that readiness will be\neffected in us only by the same means,--if now, before it come, Christ\nand Christ's Spirit shall, in our homes and daily callings, be persuaded\nto visit us.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXVI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWHITSUNDAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nACTS xix. 2.\n\n_Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed_?\n\n\nIt appears, by what follows these words, that the question here related\nespecially to those gifts of the Holy Ghost which were given, in the\nfirst age of the church, as a sign of God's power, and a witness that\nthe work of the gospel was from God. Yet although this be so, and\ntherefore the words, in this particular sense, cannot to any good\npurpose be asked now; yet there is another sense, and that not a lower\nbut a far higher one, in which we may ask them, and in which it concerns\nus in the highest degree, what sort of answer we can give to them, I\nsay, \"what sort of answer;\" for I think it is true of all Christians\nthat, in a certain measure, they have received the Holy Ghost. Not only\ndoes the doctrine of our own, and I believe every other, church,\nconcerning baptism, show this: but it seems also necessarily to follow,\nfrom those words of St. Paul, that \"No man can say that Jesus is the\nLord but by the Holy Ghost.\" And yet the Scripture and common experience\nalike show us, that a man may call Jesus Lord, and yet not be really\nhis, nor one who will be owned by Him at the last day. So that what is\nof real importance to us is, the degree of fulness and force with which\nwe could give the answer to the words of the text; not simply saying\nthat we have received the Holy Ghost, which would be true, but might be\nfar from sufficient; but saying that we have received Him and are\nreceiving Him more and more, so that our hearts and lives are showing\nthe impression of his heavenly seal daily more and more clearly and\ncompletely.\n\nAnd this must really have always been the answer which it concerned\nevery Christian to be able to make; although it has been in various\ninstances, and by very opposite parties, tried to be evaded. It is\nevaded alike by those who set too highly the grace given in baptism, and\nby those who, setting this too low, direct our attention to another\npoint in a man's life, which they call his justification or conversion.\nFor both alike would give an exaggerated importance to one particular\nmoment of our lives, and to the grace then given. Now, the importance of\nparticular moments in men's lives differs exceedingly in different\npersons; but yet in all may be exaggerated. I suppose that if ever in\nany man's life a particular point was of immense importance, it was the\npoint of his conversion in the case of St. Paul. There were here united\nall that grace which according to one view accompanies baptism\nespecially, and all which according to the other view accompanies\nconversion and justification. Here was a point which separated St.\nPaul's later life from his earlier with a broader line of separation\nthan can possibly be the ease in general. There can be no doubt that he,\nif ever man did, received at that particular time the Holy Ghost. But\nif, ten or twenty years afterwards, St. Paul had been asked concerning\nwhat the Holy Ghost had done for him, he would not certainly have\nconfined himself in his answer to the grace once given him at his\nconversion and baptism, but would have spoken of that which he had been\nreceiving since every hour and every day, carrying forward and\ncompleting that work of God which had been begun at the time of his\njourney to Damascus. And as he had received more and more grace, so was\nhis confidence in his acceptance with God at the last day more and more\nassured. For he writes to the Corinthians, many years after his\nconversion and baptism, that he kept under his body, and was bringing it\ninto subjection, lest that by any means, after having preached to\nothers, he should be himself a castaway. And some years later still,\nthough he does not use so strong an expression as that of becoming a\ncastaway, yet he still says, even when writing to the Philippians from\nRome, that he counted not himself to have apprehended, nor to have\nattained his object fully; but forgetting what was behind, even the\ngrace of his conversion and baptism, he pressed on to the things which\nwere before, even that continued and increasing grace which was required\nto bring him in safety to his heavenly crown. But if we go on some years\nyet farther, when his labours were ended, and the sure prospect of\nspeedy death was before him; when the past grace was everything, and\nwhat he could expect yet to come was scarcely any other than that\nparticular aid which we need in our struggle with the last enemy--death;\nthen, his language is free from all uncertainty; then, in the full sense\nof the words, he could say that he had received the Holy Ghost, that his\nspirit had been fully born again for its eternal being, and that there\nonly remained the raising up also of his mortal body, to complete that\nnew creation of body and soul which Christ's Spirit works in Christ's\nredeemed. \"I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I\nhave kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me my crown of\nrighteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me at\nthat day.\"\n\nIt seems, then, that the great question which we should be anxious to\nbe able to answer in the affirmative, is this, \"_Are we receiving_ the\nHoly Ghost since we believed?\" \"Since we believed,\" whether we choose to\ncarry back the date of our first belief to the very time of our baptism,\nwhen grace was given to us,--we know not to what degree nor how,--yet\ngiven to us, as being then received into Christ's flock; or whether we\ngo back only to that time when we can ourselves remember ourselves to\nhave believed, and so can remember that God's grace was given to us.\nHave we been ever since, and are we still, receiving the Holy Ghost? O\nblessed above all blessedness, if we can say that this is true of us! O\nblessed with a blessedness most complete, if we only do not too entirely\nabandon ourselves to enjoy it! Elect of God; holy and beloved; justified\nand sanctified; there is nothing in all the world that could impair or\ndestroy such happiness, except we ourselves, in evil hour, believed it\nto be out of the reach of danger.\n\nBut if the witness of memory and conscience be less favourable; if we\ncan remember long seasons of our lives during which we were not\nreceiving the Holy Ghost; long seasons of a cold and hard state, in\nwhich there was, as it were, neither rain nor dew, nor yet sun to ripen\nwhat had grown before; but all was so ungenial that no new thing grew;\nand what had grown was withering and almost dying; what shall be said,\nthen, and how can the time be made up which was so wasted? But we\nremember, it may be, that this deadly season passed away: the rain fell\nonce more, and the tender dew, and the quickening sun shone brightly:\nour spiritual growth began again, and is now going on healthily; we have\nnot always been receiving the Holy Ghost since we believed, but we are\nreceiving him now. How gracious, then, has God been to us, that he has\nagain renewed us unto repentance; that he has shown that we have not, in\nthe fullest sense, sinned against the Holy Ghost, seeing that the Holy\nGhost still abides with us! we grieved him, and tried his\nlong-suffering, but he has not abandoned us to our own evil hearts; we\nare receiving him who is the giver of life, and we still live.\n\nBut must not we speak of others? is not another case to be supposed\npossible? may there not be some who cannot say with truth that they are\nreceiving the holy Ghost now? They received him once; we doubt it not;\nperhaps they were receiving him for some length of time; their early\nchildhood was watched by Christian care; their youth and early manhood,\nwhen it received freshly things of this world, received also, with\nlively thankfulness, the grace of God; they can remember a time when\nthey were growing in goodness; when they were being renewed after the\nimage of God. But they can remember, also, that this time passed away;\nthe grace of early childhood was put out by the temptations of boyhood;\nthe grace of youth and opening manhood died away amid the hardness of\nthis life's maturity. It is so, I believe, often; that boyhood, which\nis, as it were, ripened childhood, destroys the grace of our earliest\nyears; that again, when youth offers us a second beginning of life, we\nare again impressed with good; but that ripened youth, which is manhood,\nbrings with it again the reason of hardness, and again our spiritual\ngrowth, is destroyed. We can remember, I am supposing, that this fatal\nchange did take place; but can we date it to any particular act, or\nmonth, or day, or hour? We can do so most rarely: in this respect the\nseed of death can even less be traced to its beginning than the seed of\nlife. And yet there _was_ a beginning, only we do not remember it. And\nwhy do we not remember it? Because the real beginning was in some act\nwhich seemed of so little consequence that it made no impression; in the\naltering some habit which we judged to be a mere trifle; in the\nindulging some temper which even at the time we hardly noticed. Some\nsuch little thing,--little in our view of it,--made the fatal turn; we\nreceived the grace of God less and less: we heeded not the change for a\nseason; and when it was so marked that we could not but heed it, then we\nhad ceased to regard it; and so it was that the spring of our life was\ndried up: and it is of no more avail to our present and future state,\nthat we once received grace, than the rain of last winter will be\nsufficient to ripen the summer's harvest, if from this time forward we\nhave nothing but drought and cold.\n\nSome few, again, there may be, who, within their own recollection, could\nnot say that they have received the Holy Ghost: persons who have lived\namong careless friends, to whom the way of life has never been steadily\npointed out; while the way of death, with all its manifold paths,\nmeeting at last in one, has been continually before them. Shall we say\nthat these, because they have been baptized, are therefore guilty of\nhaving rejected grace given? that this sin is aggravated, because a\nmercy was offered them once of which they were unconscious? We would not\nsay this; but we would say that it is impossible but that they must have\nreceived the Holy Ghost within their memory; it is impossible but that\nconscience must have sometimes spoken, and that they must have sometimes\nbeen enabled to obey it; it is impossible but that they must have had\nsome notions of sin, and some desires to struggle against it; and so far\nas they ever felt that desire, it was the work of God's Holy Spirit.\nMan cannot dare to say how great the amount of their guilt may be; but\nguilt there certainly is; they have grieved the Holy Spirit; and, though\nwe dare not say that they have utterly blasphemed him, yet they have a\nlong hardness to overcome, and every hour of delayed turning to God\nincreases it: it may be possible still to overcome it, but meanwhile it\nis not overcome; they are not receiving the Holy Spirit; they are not\nbeing renewed into the likeness of Christ, without which no man can\nsee God.\n\nHere, then, are the four cases, one of which must belong to every one of\nus here assembled. Either we have been always and still are receiving\nthe Holy Ghost; or we can remember when we were not, but yet are\nreceiving him now; or we can remember when we were, but yet now are not;\nor we cannot remember to have received him ever, nor are we yet\nreceiving him. I cannot say which of the last two states is the most\ndreadful, nor scarcely which of the first two states is the most\nblessed. But yet as even those happy states admit not of\nover-confidence, so neither do the last two most unhappy states oblige\nus to despair. Not to despair; but they do urge us to every degree of\nfear less than despair. There is far more danger of our not fearing\nenough than of our being driven to despair. There is far more danger of\nyour looking on the season of youth, of our looking on to old age; you\ntrusting to the second freshness and tenderness of the first,--we to the\ncalmness and necessary reflection of the last. There is far more danger\nof our thus hardening ourselves beyond recall; there is not only the\ndanger, but there is the sin, the greatest sin, I suppose, of which the\nhuman mind is capable, that of deliberately choosing evil for the\npresent rather than good, calculating that, by and by, we shall choose\ngood rather than evil. I believe, that it is impossible to conceive of\nany state of mind more sinful than one which should so feel and so\nchoose; and this is the state which we incur, and which we persist in\nwhenever we put off the thought of repentance. Now, then, it only\nremains, that we apply this each to ourselves; I say all of us apply it,\nthe young and the old alike; for there is not one here so young as not\nto have cause to apply it; there is not one of us who would not, I am\nsure, be a different person from what he now is, if he were to ask\nhimself steadily every day, Have I been and am I receiving the Holy\nGhost since I believed?\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXVII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTRINITY SUNDAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJOHN iii. 9.\n\n_How can these things be_?\n\n\nThis is the second question put by Nicodemus to our Lord with regard to\nthe truths which Jesus was declaring to him. The first was, \"How can a\nman be born when he is old?\" which was said upon our Lord's telling him\nthat, \"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.\"\nNow, it will be observed, that these two questions are treated by our\nLord in a different manner: to the first he, in fact, gives an answer;\nthat is, he removes by his answer that difficulty in Nicodemus's mind\nwhich led to the question; but to the second he gives no answer, and\nleaves Nicodemus--and with Nicodemus, us all also--exactly in the same\nignorance as he found him at the beginning.\n\nNow, is there any difference in the nature of these two questions, which\nled our Lord to treat them so differently? We might suppose beforehand\nthat there would be; and when we come to examine them, so we shall find\nit. The difficulty in the first question rendered true faith impossible,\nand, therefore, our Lord removed it; the difficulty in the second\nquestion did not properly interfere with faith at all, but might,\nthrough man's fault, be a temptation to him to refuse to believe. And\nas this, like other temptations, must be overcome by us, and not taken\naway from our path before we encounter it, so our Lord did not think\nproper to remove it or to lessen it.\n\nWe must now unfold this difference more clearly. When Christ said,\n\"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,\"\nNicodemus could not possibly believe what our Lord said, because he did\nnot understand his meaning. He did not know what he meant by \"a man's\nbeing born again,\" and, therefore, he could not believe, as he did not\nknow what he was to believe. Words which we do not understand, are like\nwords spoken in an unknown language; we can neither believe them nor\ndisbelieve them, because we do not know what they say. For instance, I\nrepeat these words, [Greek: tous pantas haemas phanerothaenai dei\nemprosaen tou baematos tou Christou.] Now, if I were to ask, Do you\nbelieve these words? is it not manifest that all of you who know Greek\nenough, to understand them may also believe them; but of those who do\nnot know Greek, not a single person can yet believe them? They are as\nyet words spoken as to the air. But when I add, that these words mean,\n\"We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;\" now we can all\nbelieve them because we can all understand them.\n\nIt is, then, perfectly impossible for any man to believe a statement\nexcept in proportion as he understands its meaning. And, therefore, our\nLord explained what he meant to Nicodemus, and told him that, by being\nborn again, he did not mean the natural birth of the body; but a birth\ncaused by the Spirit, and therefore itself a birth of a spirit: for, as\nthat which is born from a body is itself also a body, so that which is\nborn of a spirit is itself also a spirit. So that Christ's words now are\nseen to have this meaning,--No man can enter into the kingdom of God\nexcept God's Spirit creates in him a spirit or mind like unto himself,\nand like unto Christ, and like unto the Father. Nicodemus, then, could\nnow understand what was meant, and might have believed it. But he asks\nrather another question, \"How can these things be?\" How can God's Spirit\ncreate within me a spirit like himself, while I continue a man as\nbefore? Many persons since have asked similar questions; but to none of\nthem is an answer given. How God's Spirit works within us I cannot tell;\nbut if we take the appointed means of procuring his aid, we shall surely\nfind that he has worked and does work in us to life eternal.\n\nWe must, then, in order to believe, understand what it is that is told\nus; but it is by no means necessary that we should understand how it is\nto happen. It is not necessary, and in a thousand instances we do not\nknow. \"If we take poison, we shall die:\" there is a statement which we\ncan understand, and therefore believe. But do we understand how it is\nthat poison kills us? Does every one here know how poisons act upon the\nhuman frame, and what is the different operation of different\npoisons,--how laudanum kills, for instance, and how arsenic? Surely\nthere are very few of us, at most, who do understand this: and yet would\nit not be exceedingly unreasonable to refuse to believe that poison will\nkill us, because we do not understand the manner _how_?\n\nThus far, I think, the question is perfectly plain, so soon as it is\nonce laid before us. But the real point of perplexity is to be found a\nstep further. In almost all propositions there is something about the\nterms which we do understand, and something which we do not. For\ninstance, let me say these few words:--\"A frigate was lost amidst the\nbreakers.\" These words would be understood in a certain degree, by all\nwho hear me: and so far as all understand them, all can believe them.\nAll would understand that a ship had sunk in the water, or been dashed\nto pieces; that it would be useful no more for the purposes for which it\nhad been made. But what is meant by the words \"frigate\" and \"breakers\"\nall would not understand, and many would understand very differently:\nthat is to say, those who had happened to have known most about the sea\nand sea affairs would understand most about them, while those who knew\nless would understand less; but probably none of us would understand\ntheir meaning so fully, or would have so distinct and lively an image of\nthe things, as would be enjoyed by an actual seaman; and even amongst\nseamen themselves, there would again be different degrees of\nunderstanding, according to their different degrees of experience, or\nknowledge of ships, or powers of mind.\n\nI have taken the instance at random, and any other proposition might\nhave served my purpose as well. But men do not speak to one another at\nrandom; when they say anything to their neighbour, they mean it to\nproduce on his mind a certain effect. Suppose that we were living near\nthe sea-coast, and any one were suddenly to come in, and to utter the\nwords which I have taken as my example: should we not know that what the\nman meant by these words was, that there was a danger at hand for which\nour help was needed? It matters not that we have no distinct ideas of\nthe terms \"frigate\" or \"breakers;\" we understand enough for our belief\nand practice, and we should hasten to the sea-shore accordingly. Or\nsuppose that the same words were told us of a frigate in which we had\nsome near relation: should we not see at once that what we were meant to\nunderstand and to believe in the words was, that we had lost a relation?\nThat is the truth with which we are concerned; and this we can\nunderstand and feel, although we may be able to understand nothing more\nof the words in which that truth is conveyed to us. Now, in like manner,\nin whatever God says to us there is a purpose: it is intended to produce\non our minds a certain impression, and so far it must be understood. But\nwhen God speaks to us of heavenly things, the terms employed can only be\nunderstood in part, and so far as God's purpose with regard to our minds\nreaches; but there must be a great deal in them which we can no more\nunderstand than one who had never seen a ship, or a picture of one,\ncould understand the word \"frigate.\" Our business is to consider what\nimpression or what actions the words are intended to produce in us. Up\nto this point we can and must understand them: beyond this they may be\nwholly above the reach of our faculties, and we can form of them no\nideas at all.\n\nIt is clear that this will be the case most especially whenever God\nreveals to us anything concerning himself. Take these few words, for\nexample, \"God is a spirit;\" take them as a mere abstract truth, and how\nlittle can we understand about them! Who will dare to say that he\nunderstands all that is contained in the words \"God\" and \"spirit?\" We\nmight weary ourselves for ever in attempting so to search out either.\nBut God said these words to us: and the point is, What impression did he\nmean them to have upon us? how far can we understand them? This he has\nnot by any means left doubtful, for it follows immediately, \"They who\nworship him should worship Him in spirit and in truth.\" For this end the\nwords were spoken, and thus far they are clear to us. God lives not on\nMount Gerizim or at Jerusalem: but in every place he hears the prayers\nof the sincere and contrite heart, in no place will he regard the\nofferings of the proud and evil.\n\nOr again, \"God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,\nto the end that all who believe in him should not perish, but have\neternal life.\" Here are words in themselves, as abstract truths,\nperfectly overwhelming; \"God,\" \"God's only-begotten Son,\" \"Eternity.\"\nWho shall understand these things, when it is said, that \"none knoweth\nthe Son, save the Father; that none knoweth the Father, save the Son?\"\nBut did God tell us the words for nothing? can we understand nothing\nfrom them? believe nothing? feel nothing? Nay, they were spoken that we\nmight both understand, and believe, and feel. How must He love us, who\ngives for us his only-begotten Son! how surely may we believe in Him who\nis an only-begotten Son to his Father,--so equal in nature, so entire in\nunion!--What must that happiness be, which reaches beyond our powers of\ncounting! Would we go further?--then the veil is drawn before us; other\ntruths there are, no doubt, contained in the words; truths which the\nangels might desire to look into; truths which even they may be unable\nto understand. But these are the secret things which belong unto our\nGod; the things which are revealed they are what belong to us and to our\nchildren, that we may understand, and believe, and do them.\n\nAgain, \"the Comforter, whom Christ will send unto us from the Father,\neven the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall\ntestify of Christ.\" What words are here! \"The Spirit of Truth,\" \"the\nSpirit proceeding from the Father;\" the Spirit \"whom Christ will send,\"\nand \"send from the Father.\" Can any created being understand, to the\nfull, such \"heavenly things\" as these? But would Christ have uttered to\nhis disciples mere unintelligible words, which could tell them nothing,\nand excite in them no feeling but mere wonder? Not so; but the words\ntold them that Christ was not to be lost to them after he had left them\non earth; that every gift of God was his: that even that Spirit of God,\nin which is contained all the fulness of the Godhead, is the Spirit of\nChrist also; that that mighty power which should work in them so\nabundantly, was of no other or lower origin than God himself; as\nentirely God, as the spirit of man is man. But can we therefore\nunderstand the Spirit of God, or conceive of him? How should we, when we\ncannot understand our own? This, and this only, we understand and\nbelieve, that without him our spirits cannot be quickened; that unless\nwe pray daily for his aid, and listen to his calls within us, our spirit\nwill never be created after his image, and we cannot enter into the\nkingdom of God.\n\nIt is thus, and thus only, that the revelations of God's word are beyond\nour understandings: that in them, beings and things are spoken of,\nwhich, taken generally, and in themselves, we should in vain endeavour\nto comprehend. But what God means us to know, or feel, or do, respecting\nthem, that we can understand; and beyond this we have no concern. It is,\nin fact, a contradiction to speak of revealing what is unintelligible;\nfor so far as it is a revealed truth it is intelligible; so far as it is\nunintelligible, it is not revealed. But though a thing revealed must be\nintelligible in itself, yet it by no means follows that we can\nunderstand _how_ it happens. When we are told that the dead shall rise\nagain, we can understand quite well what is meant; that we beings who\nfeel happiness and misery, shall feel them again, either the one or the\nother, after we seemingly have done with them for ever in the grave. But\n\"How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?\" are\nquestions to which, whether asked scoffingly or sincerely, we can give\nno answers; here our understanding fails, and here the truth is not\nrevealed to us.\n\nHow, then, has Christianity no mysteries? In one sense, blessed be God\nfor it, it has many. Using mysteries in St. Paul's sense of great\nrevelations of things which were and must be unknown to all, except God\nhad revealed them: then, indeed, they are many; the pillar and ground of\ntruth, great without controversy, and full of salvation. But take\nmysteries in our more common sense of the word,--as things which are\nrevealed to none, and can be understood by none,--then it is true that\nChristianity leaves many such in existence; that many such she has done\naway; that none has she created. She leaves many mysteries with respect\nto God, and with respect to ourselves; God is still incomprehensible;\nlife and death have many things in them beyond our questioning; we may\nstill look around us, above us, and within us, and wonder, and be\nignorant. But if she still leaves the veil drawn over much in heaven and\nin earth, yet from how much has she removed it! Life and death are still\nin many respects dark; but she has brought to light immortality. God is\nstill in himself incomprehensible; but all his glory, and all his\nperfections, are revealed to us in his only-begotten Son Christ Jesus.\nGod's Spirit who can search out in his own proper essence? yet\nChristianity has taught us how we may have him to dwell with us for\never, and taste the fulness of his blessings. Yea, thanks be to God for\nthe great Christian mystery which we this day celebrate; that he has\nrevealed himself to us as our Saviour and our Comforter; that he has\nrevealed to us his infinite love, in that he has given us his\nonly-begotten Son to die for us, and his own Eternal Spirit to make our\nhearts his temple.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXVIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXODUS iii. 6.\n\n_And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God_.\n\n\nLUKE xxiii. 30.\n\n_Then shall they begin to say to the mountains. Fall on us; and to the\nhills, Cover us_.\n\n\nThese two passages occur, the one in the first lesson of this morning's\nservice, the other in the second. One or other of them must have been,\nor must be, the case of you, of me, of every soul of man that lives or\nhas lived since the world began. There must be a time in the existence\nof every human being when he will fear God. But the great, the infinite\ndifference is, whether we fear him at the beginning of our relations to\nhim, or at the end.\n\nThe fear of Moses was felt at the beginning of his knowledge of God.\nWhen God revealed himself to him at the bush, it was, so far as we are\ntold, the first time that Moses learnt to know him. The fear of those\nwho say to the mountains, \"Fall on us,\" is felt at the very end of their\nknowledge of God; for to those who are punished with everlasting\ndestruction from the presence of the Lord, God is not. So that the two\ncases in the text are exact instances of the difference of which I\nspoke, in the most extreme degree. Moses, the greatest of the prophets,\nfears God at first; those who are cast into hell, fear him at last.\n\nThe appearance of God, as described in this passage of Scripture, is an\nimage also of his dealings with us at the beginning of our course, when\nwe fear him with a saving fear. \"The bush burned with fire, but the bush\nwas not consumed.\" God shows his terrors, but he does not, as yet,\ndestroy with them. It is the very opposite to this at last, for then he\nis expressly said to be a consuming fire.\n\nMoses turned aside to see this great sight, why the bush was not burnt.\nThat sight is the very same which the world has been offering for so\nmany hundreds of years: God's terrors are around it, but, as yet, it is\nnot consumed, because he wills that we should fear him before it is\ntoo late.\n\nThere is, indeed, this great difference;--that the signs of God's\npresence do not now force themselves upon our eyes; so that we may, if\nwe choose, walk on our own way, without turning aside to see and observe\nthem. And thus we do not see God, and do not, therefore, hide our faces\nfor fear of him, but go on, and feel no fear, till the time when we\ncannot help seeing him. And it may be, that this time will never come\ntill our life, and with it our space of trial, is gone for ever.\n\nHere, then, is our state, that God will manifest himself no more to us\nin such a way as that we cannot help seeing him. The burning bush will\nbe no more given us as a sign; Christ will no more manifest himself unto\nthe world. And yet, unless we do see him, unless we learn to fear him\nwhile he is yet an unconsuming fire, unless we know that he is near, and\nthat the place whereon we stand is holy ground, we shall most certainly\nsee him when he will be a consuming fire, and when we shall join in\ncrying to the mountains, to fall on us, and to the hills, to cover us.\n\nEvery person who thinks at all, must, I am sure, be satisfied, that our\ngreat want, the great need of our condition, is this one thing--to\nrealize to ourselves the presence of God. It is a want not at all\npeculiar to the young. Thoughtfulness, in one sense, is indeed likely to\ncome with advancing years: we are more apt to think at forty than at\nfifteen; but it by no means follows that we are more apt to think about\nGod. In this matter we are nearly at a level at all times of our life:\nit is with all of us our one great want, to bring the idea of God, with\na living and abiding power, home to our minds.\n\nThis is illustrated by a wish ascribed to a great and good man--Johnson,\nand which has been noticed with a sneer by unbelievers, a wish that he\nmight see a spirit from the other world, to testify to him of the truth\nof the resurrection. This has been sneered at, as if it were a\nconfession of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence which we\nactually possess: but, in truth, it is a confession only of the weakness\nwhich clings to us all, that things unseen, which our reason only\nassures us to be real, are continually overpowered by things affecting\nour senses; and, therefore, it was a natural wish that sight might, in a\nmanner, come to the aid of reason; that the eye might see, and the ear\nmight hear, a form and words which belonged to another world. And this\nwish might arise (I do not say wisely, or that his deliberate judgment\nwould sanction it, but it might arise) in the breast of a good man, and\none who would be willing to lay down his life in proof of his belief in\nChrist's promises. It might arise, not because he felt any doubt, when\nhis mind turned calmly to the subject; not because he was hesitating\nwhat should be the main principle of his life; but because his\nexperience had told him, that there are many times in the life of man\nwhen the mind does not fully exert itself; when habit and impressions\nrule us, in a manner, in its stead. And when so many of our impressions\nmust be earthly, and as our impressions colour our habits, is it not\nnatural (I do not say wise, but is it not natural) to desire some one\nforcible unearthly impression, which might, on the other side, colour\nour habits, and so influence us at those times when the mind, almost by\nthe necessity of our condition, cannot directly interpose its own\ndeliberate decision as our authority?\n\nNo doubt the wish to which I have been alluding is not one which our\nreason would sanction; but it expresses in a very lively and striking\nmanner a want which is most true and real, although it proposes an\nimpossible remedy. But the question cannot but occur to us, Can it be\nthat our heavenly Father, who knows whereof we are made, should have\nintended us to live wholly by faith in this world? That is, Can it have\nbeen his will that all visible signs of himself should be withdrawn from\nus; and that we should be left only with the record and the evidence of\nhis mighty works done in our behalf in past times; and with that other\nevidence of his wisdom and power which is afforded by the wonders of\nhis creation?\n\nWe look into the Scriptures and we learn that such was not his will. We\nwere to live by faith, indeed, with, respect to the unseen world, there\nthe sign given was to be for ever only the sign of Christ's\nresurrection. But yet it was not designed that the evidence of Christ's\nhaving redeemed us should be sought for only in the records of the past;\nhe purposed that there should be a living record, a record that might\nspeak to our senses as well as to our reason; that should continually\npresent us with impressions of the reality of Christ's salvation; and so\nmight work upon the habits of our life, as insensibly as the air we\nbreathe. This living witness, which should last till Christ came again,\nwas to be no other than his own body instinct with his own Spirit--his\npeople, the temple of the Holy Ghost, his holy universal Church.\n\nIf we consider for a moment, this would entirely meet the want of which\nI have been speaking. It is possible, certainly, to look upon the face\nof nature without being reminded of God; yet it is surely true, that in\nthe outward creation, in the order of the seasons, the laws of the\nheavenly bodies, the wonderful wisdom and goodness displayed in the\nconstitution of every living thing in its order, there is a tendency at\nleast to impress us with, the thought of God, if nothing else obstructed\nit. But there is a constant obstruction in the state of man. Looking at\nmen, hearing them, considering them, it is not only possible not to be\nreminded of God; but their very tendency is to exclude him from our\nminds, because the moral workmanship which is so predominant in them has\nassuredly not had God for its author. We all in our dealings with one\nanother, lead each other away from God. We present to each other's view\nwhat seems to be a complete world of our own, in which God is not. We\nsee a beginning, a middle, and an end; we see faculties for acquiring\nknowledge, and for receiving enjoyment; and earth furnishes knowledge to\nthe one and enjoyment to the other. We see desires, and we see the\nobjects to which they are limited; we see that death removes men from\nall these objects, and consistently with this, we observe, that death is\ngenerally regarded as the greatest of all evils. Man's witness, then, as\nfar as it goes, is against the reality of God and of eternity. His life,\nhis language, his desires, his understanding appear, when we look over\nthe world, to refer to no being higher than himself, to no other state\nof things than that of which sight testifies.\n\nNow, Christ's Church, the living temple of the Holy Ghost, puts in the\nplace of this natural and corrupt man, whose witness is against God,\nanother sort of man, redeemed and regenerate, whose whole being breathes\na perpetual witness of God. Consider, again, what we should see in such\na Church. We should see a beginning, a middle, but the end is not yet\nvisible; we should see, besides the faculties for knowledge and\nenjoyment which were receiving their gratification daily, other\nfaculties of both kinds, whose gratification was as yet withheld; we\nshould see desires not limited to any object now visible or attainable.\nWe should see death looked to as the gate by which these hitherto\nunobtained objects were to be sought for; and we should hear it spoken\nof, not as the greatest of evils, but as an event solemn, indeed, and\npainful to nature, but full of blessing and of happiness. We should see\nlove, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,\ntemperance; a constitution of nature as manifestly proclaiming its\nauthor to be the God of all holiness and loving-kindness, as the\nwonderful structure of our eyes or hands declares them to be the work of\nthe God of all wisdom and power. We should thus see in all our\nfellow-men, not only as much, but far more than in the constitution of\nthe lower animals, or of the plants, or of the heavenly bodies, a\nwitness of God and of eternity. Their whole lives would be a witness;\ntheir whole conversation would be a witness; their outward and more\npeculiar acts of worship would then bear their part in harmony with all\nthe rest. Every day would the voices of the Church be heard in its\nservices of prayer and thanksgiving; every day would its members renew\ntheir pledges of faithfulness to Christ, and to one another, upon\npartaking together the memorials of his sacrifice.\n\nWhat could we desire more than such a living witness as this? What sign\nin the sky, what momentary appearance of a spirit from the unseen world,\ncould so impress us with the reality of God, as this daily worshipping\nin his living temple; this daily sight, of more than the Shechinah of\nold, even of his most Holy Spirit, diffusing on every side light and\nblessing? And what is now become of this witness? can names, and forms,\nand ordinances, supply its place? can our unfrequent worship, our most\nseldom communion, impress on us an image of men living altogether in the\npresence of God, and in communion with Christ? But before we dwell on\nthis, we may, while considering the design of the true Church of Christ,\nwell understand how such excellent things should be spoken of it, and\nhow it should have been introduced into the Creed itself, following\nimmediately after the mention of the Holy Ghost. That holy universal\nChurch was to be the abiding witness of Christ's love and of Christ's\npromises; not in its outward forms only, for they by themselves are not\na living witness; they cannot meet our want--to have God and heavenly\nthings made real to us; but in its whole spirit, by which renewed man\nwas to bear as visibly the image of God, as corrupted man had lost it.\nThis was the sure sign that Christ had appointed to abide until his\ncoming again; this sign, as striking as the burning bush, would compel\nus to observe; would make us sure that the place whereon we stand is\nholy ground.\n\nThen follows the question: With this sign lost in its most essential\npoints, how can we supply its place? and how can we best avail ourselves\nof those parts of it which still remain? and how can we each endeavour\nto build up a partial and most imperfect imitation of it, which may\nyet, in some sort, serve to supply our great want, and remind us daily\nof God? This opens a wide field for thought, to those who are willing to\nfollow it; but much of it belongs to other occasions rather than this:\nthe practical part of it,--the means of most imperfectly supplying the\nwant of God's own appointed sign, a true and living universal Church,\nshall be the subject of my next Lecture.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXIX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPSALM cxxxvii. 4.\n\n_How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land_?\n\n\nThis was said by the exiles of Jerusalem, when they were in the land of\ntheir captivity in Babylon. There is no reason to suppose that their\ncondition was one of bondage, as it had been in Egypt: the nations\nremoved by conquest, under the Persian kings, from their own country to\nanother land, were no otherwise ill-treated; they had new homes given\nthem in which they lived unmolested; only they were torn away from their\nown land, and were as sojourners in a land of strangers. But the\npeculiar evil of this state was, that they were torn away from the\nproper seat of their worship. The Jew in Babylon might have his own\nhome, and his own land to cultivate, as he had in Jud\u00e6a; but nothing\ncould replace to him the loss of the temple at Jerusalem: there alone\ncould the morning and evening sacrifices be offered; there alone could\nthe sin-offering for the people be duly made. Banished from the temple,\ntherefore, he was deprived also of the most solemn part of his religion;\nhe was, as it were, exiled from God; and the worship of God, as it was\nnow left to him,--that is, the offering up of prayers and praises,--was\nalmost painful to him, as it reminded him so forcibly of his changed\ncondition.\n\nSuch also, in some respects, was to be the state of the Christian\nChurch after our Lord's ascension. The only acceptable sacrifice was now\nthat of their great High Priest interceding for them in the presence of\nthe Father: heaven was their temple, and they were far removed from it\nupon earth: they, too, like the Jews in Babylon, were a little society\nby themselves living in the midst of strangers. \"Our citizenship,\" says\nSt. Paul to the Philippians, \"is in heaven:\" here they were not\ncitizens, but sojourners. Why, then, should not the early Christians\nhave joined altogether in the feeling of the Jews at Babylon? why should\nnot they, too, have felt and said, \"How can we sing the Lord's song in a\nstrange land?\"\n\nThe answer is contained in what I said last Sunday; because Christ had\nnot left them comfortless or forsaken, but was come again to them by his\nHoly Spirit; because God was dwelling in the midst of them; because they\nwere not exiles from the temple of God, but were themselves become God's\ntemple; because through the virtue of the one offering for sin once\nmade, but for ever presented before God by their High Priest in heaven,\nthey, in God's temple on earth, were presenting also their daily and\nacceptable sacrifice, the sacrifice of themselves; because also, though\nas yet they were a small society in a land of strangers, yet the stone\nformed without hands was to become a mighty mountain, and cover the\nwhole earth: what was now the land of strangers was to become theirs;\nthe whole earth should be full of the knowledge of the Lord; the\nkingdoms of the world were to become his kingdom; and thus earth,\nredeemed from the curse of sin, was again to be so blessed that God's\nservants living upon it should find it no place of exile.\n\nBut if this, in its reality, does not now exist; if, although God's\ntemple be on earth, the appointed sacrifice in it is not offered, the\nliving sacrifice of ourselves; if the society has, by spreading, become\nweak, and the kingdoms of the earth are Christ's kingdoms in name alone;\nare we, then, come back once more to the condition of the Jews in\nBabylon? are we exiles from God, living amongst strangers? and must we,\ntoo, say, with the prophet, \"How can we sing the Lord's song in a\nstrange land?\"\n\nThis was the question which I proposed to answer: What can we do to make\nour condition unlike that of exiles from God: to restore that true sign\nof his presence amongst us, the living fire of his Holy Spirit pervading\nevery part of his temple? I mean, what can we do as individuals? for the\nquestion in any other sense is not to be asked or answered here. But we,\neach of us, must have felt, at some time or other, our distance from\nGod. Put the idea in what form or what words we will, we must--every one\nof us who has ever thought seriously at all--we must regret that there\nis not a stronger and more abiding influence over us, to keep us from\nevil, and to turn us to good.\n\nNow, the vestiges of Christ's church left among us are chiefly these:\nour prayers together, whether in our families or in this place; our\nreading of the Scriptures together; our communion, rare as it is, in the\nmemorials of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour. These are the\nvestiges of that which was designed to be with us always, and in every\npart of our lives, the holy temple of God, his living church; but which\nnow presents itself to us only at particular times, and places, and\nactions; in our worship and in our joint reading of the Scriptures, and\nin our communion.\n\nIt will be understood at once why I have not spoken here of prayer and\nreading the Scriptures by ourselves alone. Most necessary as these are\nto us, yet they do not belong to the helps ministered to us by the\nchurch; they belong to us each as individuals, and in these respects we\nmust be in the same state everywhere: these were enjoyed by the Jews\neven in their exile in Babylon. But the church acts upon us through one\nanother, and therefore the vestiges of the church can only be sought for\nin what we do, not alone, but together. I, therefore, noticed only that\nprayer, and that reading of the Scriptures, in which many of us took\npart in common.\n\nSuch common prayer takes place amongst us every morning and evening, as\nwell as on Sundays within these walls. Whenever we meet on those\noccasions, we meet as Christ's church. Now, conceive how the effect of\nsuch meeting depends on the conduct of each of us. It is not necessary\nto notice behaviour openly profane and disorderly: this does not occur\namongst us. We see, however, that if it did occur in any meeting for the\npurposes of religious worship, such a meeting would do us harm rather\nthan good: its witness to us would not be in favour of God, but against\nhim. But take another case: when we are assembled for prayers, suppose\nour behaviour, without being disorderly, was yet so manifestly\nindifferent as to be really indecent; that is, suppose every countenance\nshowed such manifest signs of weariness, and impatience, and want of\ninterest in what was going forward, that it was evident there was no\ngeneral sympathy with any feeling of devotion. Would not the effect here\nalso be injurious? would not such a meeting also shock and check our\napproaches towards God? would it not rather convince us that God was\nreally far distant from us, instead of showing that he was in the\nmidst of us?\n\nAscend one step higher. Our behaviour is neither disorderly, nor\nmanifestly indifferent: it is decent, serious, respectful. What is the\neffect in this case? Not absolutely unfavourable certainly; but yet far\nfrom being much help towards good. We bear our witness that we are\nengaged in a matter that should be treated with reverence: this is very\nright; but do we more than this? Do we show that we are engaged in a\nmatter that commands our interest also, as well as our respect? If not,\nour witness is not the witness of Christ's church: it does not go to\ndeclare that God is in us of a truth.\n\nLet us go on one step more. We meet together to pray: we are orderly, we\nare quiet, we are serious; but the countenance shows that we are\nsomething more than these. There is on it the expression, never to be\nmistaken, of real interest. Remember I am speaking of meetings for\nprayer, where the words are perfectly familiar to us, and where the\ninterest therefore cannot be the mere interest of novelty. Say, then,\nthat our countenances express interest: I do not mean strong and excited\nfeeling; but interest, which may be very real yet very quiet also. We\nlook as if we thought of what we were engaged in, of what we are\nourselves, and of what God is to us. We are joined in one common feeling\nof thankfulness to him for mercies past, of wishing for his help and\nlove for the time to come. Now, think what would be the effect of such a\nmeeting. Would it not be, clearly, positively good! Would not every\nindividual's earnestness be confirmed by the manifest earnestness of\nothers? Would not his own sense of God's reality be rendered stronger,\nby seeing that others felt it just as he did? Then, here would be the\nchurch of God rendering her appointed witness: she would be giving her\nsure sign that God is not far from any one of us.\n\nNow, then, observe what we may lose or gain by our different behaviour,\nwhenever we meet together in prayer; what we lose, nay, what positive\nmischief we do, by any visible impatience or indifference; what we\nshould gain by really joining in our hearts in the meaning of what was\nuttered. It is a solemn thing for the consciences of us all; but surely\nit must be true, that, whenever we are careless or indifferent in our\npublic prayers, we are actually injuring our neighbours, and are, so far\nas in us lies, destroying the witness which the church of Christ should\nrender to the truth of God her Saviour.\n\nI do not know that there is anything more impressive than the sight of a\ncongregation evidently in earnest in the service in which they are\nengaged. We then feel how different is our own lonely prayer from the\nunited voice of many hearts; each cheering, strengthening, enkindling\nthe other. We then consider one another to provoke unto love and good\nworks. How different are the feelings with which we regard a number of\npersons met for any common purpose, and the same persons engaged\ntogether in serious prayer or praise! Then Christ seems to appear to us\nin each of them; we are all one in him. How little do all earthly\nunkindnesses, dislikes, prejudices, become in our eyes, when the real\nbond of our common faith is discerned clearly! There is indeed neither\nGreek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian,\nbond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all. And to look at our\nbrethren, once or twice in every day, with these Christian eyes, would\nit not also, by degrees, impress us at other times, and begin to form\nsomething of our habitual temper and regard towards them?\n\nThus much of our meetings for prayer. One word only on those in which we\nmeet to read the Scriptures. Here I know, that difference of age, and\nour peculiar relations to each other, make us very apt to lose the\nreligious character of our readings of the Scriptures, and to regard\nthem merely as lessons. No doubt, the object here is instruction; it is\nnot so much in itself a religious exercise, as a means to enable you to\nperform religious exercises with understanding and sincerity. Still\nthere is a peculiar character attached even to lessons, when they are\ntaken out of the Scriptures: and the duty of attention and interest in\nthe work becomes even stronger than under other circumstances. But with\nthose of a more advanced age, I think there is more than this; I think\nit must be our own fault, if, whilst engaged together in reading the\nScriptures, which we only read because we are Christians, we do not feel\nthat there also we are employed on a duty belonging to the Church\nof Christ.\n\nLastly, there is our joint communion in the bread, and in the cup, of\nthe Lord's Supper. Here there is seriousness; here there is always, I\ntrust and believe, something of real interest; and, therefore, we never,\nI think, meet together at the Lord's table, without feeling a true\neffect of Christ's gifts to and in his Church; we are strengthened and\nbrought nearer to one another, and to him. But this most precious pledge\nof Christ's Church we too often forfeit for ourselves. That we have lost\nso much of the help which the Church was designed to give, is not our\nfault individually; but it is our fault that we neglect this means of\nstrength, so great in bearing witness to Christ, and in kindling love\ntowards one another. What can be said of us, if, with so many helps\nlost, we throw away that which still remains? if, of the great treasure\nwhich the Church yet keeps, we are wilfully ignorant? How much good\nmight we do, both to ourselves and to each other, by joining in that\ncommunion! How surely should we be strengthened in all that is good, and\nhave a help from each other, through his Spirit working in us all, to\nstruggle against our evil!\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1 CORINTHIANS xi. 26.\n\n_For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the\nLord's death till he come_.\n\n\nWhen I spoke last Sunday of the benefits yet to be derived from Christ's\nChurch, I spoke of them, as being, for the most part, three in\nnumber--our communion in prayer, our communion in reading the\nScriptures, and our communion in the Lord's Supper; and, after having\nspoken of the first two of these, I proposed to leave the third for our\nconsideration to-day.\n\nThe words of the text are enough to show how closely this subject is\nconnected with that event which we celebrate to-day[13]: \"As often as ye\neat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he\ncome.\" The communion, then, with one another in the Lord's Supper is\ndoing that which this day was also designed to do; it is showing forth,\nor declaring the Lord's death; it is declaring, in the face of all the\nworld, that we partake of the Lord's Supper because we believe that\nChrist our Passover was sacrificed for us.\n\n[Footnote 13: Good Friday.]\n\nGod might, no doubt, if it had so pleased him, have made all spiritual\nblessing come to us immediately from himself. Without ascending any\nhigher with the idea, it is plain that Christianity might have been made\na thing wholly between each individual man and Christ; all our worship\nmight have been the secret worship of our own hearts; and in eating the\nbread, and drinking the cup, to show forth the Lord's death, each one of\nus might have done this singly, holding communion with Christ alone. I\nmean, that it is quite conceivable that we should have had Christianity,\nand a great number of Christians spread all over the world, but yet no\nChristian Church. But, although this is conceivable, and, in fact, is\npractically the case in some particular instances where individual\nChristians happen to be quite cut off from all other Christians,--as has\nbeen known sometimes in foreign and remote countries; and although,\nthrough various evil causes, it has become, in many respects, too much\nthe case with us all; for our religion is with all of us, I am inclined\nto think, too much a matter between God and ourselves alone; yet still\nit is not the design of Christ that it should be so: his people were not\nonly to be good men, redeemed from sin and death and brought to know and\nlove the truth, in which relation Christianity would appear like a\ndivine philosophy only, working not only upon individuals, but through\ntheir individual minds, and as individuals; but they were to be the\nChristian Church, helping one another in things pertaining to God, and\nmaking their mutual brotherhood to one another an essential part of what\nare called peculiarly their acts of religion. So that the Church of\nEngland seems to have well borne in mind this character of Christianity,\nnamely, that it presents us not each, but all together, before God; and\ntherefore it is ordered that even in very small parishes, where \"there\nare not more than twenty persons in the parish of discretion to receive\nthe communion, yet there shall be no communion, except four, or three at\nthe least, out of these twenty communicate together with the priest.\"\nNay, even in the Communion of the Sick, under circumstances which seem\nto make religion particularly an individual matter between Christ and\nour own single selves; when the expected approach of death seems to\nseparate, in the most marked manner, according to human judgment, him\nwho is going hence from his brethren still in the world; even then it is\nordered that two other persons, at the least, shall communicate along\nwith the sick man and the minister. Nor is this ever relaxed except in\ntimes of pestilence; when it is provided, that if no other person can be\npersuaded to join from their fear of infection, then, and then only upon\nspecial request of the diseased, the minister may alone communicate with\nthem. So faithfully does our Church adhere to this true Christian\nnotion, that at the Lord's Supper we are not to communicate with Christ\nalone, but with him in and together with our brethren; so that I was\njustified in regarding the Holy Communion as one of those helps and\nblessings which we still derive from the Christian Church--from Christ's\nmystical body.\n\nIt is the natural process of all false and corrupt religions, on the\ncontrary, to destroy this notion of Christ's Church, and to lead away\nour thoughts from our brethren in matters of religion, and to fix them\nmerely upon God as known to us through a priest. The great evil in this\nis, (if there is any one evil greater than another in a system so wholly\nmade up of falsehood, and so leading to all wickedness; but, at any\nrate, one great evil of it is,) that whereas the greatest part of all\nour lives is engaged in our relations towards our brethren, that there\nlie most of our temptations to evil, as well as of our opportunities of\ngood, if our brethren do not form an essential part of our religions\nviews, it follows, and always has followed, that our behaviour and\nfeelings towards them are guided by views and principles not religious;\nand that by this fatal separation of what God has joined together, our\nworship and religious services become superstitious, while our life and\nactions become worldly, in the bad sense of the term, low principled,\nand profane.\n\nIf this is not so clear when put into a general form, it will be plain\nenough when I show it in that particular example which we are concerned\nwith here. Nowhere, I believe, is the temptation stronger to lose sight\nof one another in our religious exercises, and especially in our\nCommunion. Our serious thoughts in turning to God, turn away almost\ninstinctively from our companions about us. Practically, as far as the\nheart is concerned, we are a great deal too apt to go to the Lord's\ntable each alone. But consider how much we lose by this. We are\nnecessarily in constant relations with one another; some of those\nrelations are formal, others are trivial; we connect each other every\nday with a great many thoughts, I do not say of unkindness, but yet of\nthat indifferent character which is no hindrance to any unkindness when\nthe temptation to it happens to arise. This must always be the case in\nlife; business, neighbourhood, pleasure,--the occasions of most of our\nintercourse with one another,--have in them nothing solemn or softening:\nthey have in themselves but little tendency to lead us to the love of\none another. Now, if this be so in the world, it is even more so here;\nyour intercourse with one another is much closer and more constant than\nwhat can exist in after life with any but the members of your own\nfamily; and yet the various relations which this intercourse has to do\nwith, are even less serious and less softening than those of ordinary\nlife in manhood. The kindliness of feeling which is awakened in after\nyears between two men, by the remembrance of having been at school\ntogether, even without any particular acquaintance with each other, is a\nvery different thing from the feeling of being at school with each\nother now. I do not wonder, then, that any one of you, when he resolves\nto come to the Holy Communion, should rather try to turn away his\nthoughts from his companions, and to think of himself alone as being\nconcerned in what he is going to do. I do not wonder at it; but, then,\nneither do I wonder that, when the Communion is over, and thoughts of\nhis companions must return, they receive little or no colour from his\nreligious act so lately performed; that they are as indifferent as they\nwere before, as little furnishing a security against neglect, or\npositive unkindness, or encouragement of others to evil. Depend upon it,\nunless your common life is made a part of your religion, your religion\nwill never sanctify your common life.\n\nNow consider, on the one hand, what might be the effect of going to the\nHoly Communion with a direct feeling that, in that Communion, we, though\nmany, were all brought together in Christ Jesus. And first, I will speak\nof our thoughts of those who are partakers of the Communion with us,\nthen of those who are not. When others are gone out, and we who are to\ncommunicate are left alone with each other, then, if we perceive that\nthere are many of us, the first natural feeling is one of joy, that we\nare so many; that our party,--that only true and good party to which we\nmay belong with all our hearts,--that our party,--that Christ's party,\nseems so considerable. Then there comes the thought, that we are all met\ntogether freely, willingly, not as a matter of form, to receive the\npledges of Christ's love to us, to pledge ourselves to him in return. If\nwe are serious, those around us may be supposed to be serious too; if we\nwish to have help from God to lead a holier life, they surely wish the\nsame; if the thought of past sin is humbling us, the same shame is\nworking in our brethren's bosoms; if we are secretly resolving, by\nGod's grace, to serve him in earnest, the hearts around us are, no\ndoubt, resolving the same. There is the consciousness, (when and where\nelse can we enjoy it?) that we are in sympathy with all present; that,\ncoloured merely by the lesser distinctions of individual character, one\nand the same current of feeling is working within us all. And, if\nfeeling this of our sympathy with one another, how strongly is it\nheightened by the thought of what Christ has done for us all! We are all\nloving him, because he loved us all; we are going together to celebrate\nhis death, because he died for us all; we are resolving all to serve\nhim, because his Holy Spirit is given to us all, and we are all brought\nto drink of the same Spirit. Then let us boldly carry our thoughts a\nlittle forward to that time, only a short hour hence, when we shall\nagain be meeting one another, in very different relations; even in those\ncommon indifferent relations of ordinary life which are connected so\nlittle with Christ. Is it impossible to think, that, although we shall\nmeet without these walls in very different circumstances, yet that we\nhave seen each other pledging ourselves to serve Christ together? if the\nrecollection of this lives in us, why should it not live in our\nneighbour? If we are labouring to keep alive our good resolutions made\nat Christ's table, why should we think that others have forgotten them?\nWe do not talk of them openly, yet still they exist within us. May not\nour neighbour's silence also conceal within his breast the same good\npurposes? At any rate, we may and ought to regard him as ranged on our\nside in the great struggle of life; and if outward circumstances do not\nso bring us together as to allow of our openly declaring our sympathy,\nyet we may presume that it still exists; and this consciousness may\ncommunicate to the ordinary relations of life that very softness which\nthey need, in order to make them Christian.\n\nAgain, with regard to those who go out, and do not approach to the\nLord's table. With some it is owing to their youth; with others to a\nmistaken notion of their youth; with others to some less excusable\nreason, perhaps, but yet to such as cannot yet exclude kindness and\nhope. But having once felt what it is to be only with those who are met\nreally as Christians, our sense of what it is to want this feeling is\nproportionably raised. Is it sad to us to think that our neighbour does\nnot look upon us as fellow Christians? is it something cold to feel that\nhe regards us only in those common worldly relations which leave men in\nheart so far asunder? Then let us take heed that we do not ourselves\nfeel so towards him. We have learnt to judge more truly, to feel more\njustly, of our relations to every one who bears Christ's name: if we\nforget this, we have no excuse; for we have been at Christ's table, and\nhave been taught what Christians are to one another. And let our\nneighbour be ever so careless, yet we know that Christ cares for him;\nthat his Spirit has not yet forsaken him, but is still striving with\nhim. And if God vouchsafes so much to him, how can we look upon him as\nthough he were no way connected with us? how can we be as careless of\nhis welfare, as apt either to annoy him, or to lead him into evil, or to\ntake no pains to rescue him from it, as if he were no more to us than\nthe accidental inhabitant of the same place, who was going on his way as\nwe may be on ours, neither having any concern with the other?\n\nAnd, now, is it nothing to learn so to feel towards those around us; to\nhave thus gained what will add kindness and interest to all our\nrelations with others; and, in the case of many, will give an abiding\nsense of the truest sympathy, and consequently greater confidence and\nencouragement to ourselves? Be sure that this is not to profane the\nLord's Supper, but to use it according to Christ's own ordinance. For\nthough the thoughts of which I have been speaking, have, in one sense,\nman and not God for their object, yet as they do not begin in man but in\nChrist, and in his love to us all, so neither do they, properly\nspeaking, rest in man as such, but convert him, as it were, into an\nimage of Christ: so that their end, as well as their beginning, is with\nHim. I do earnestly desire that you would come to Christ's table, in\norder to learn a Christian's feelings towards one another. This is what\nyou want every day; and the absence of which leads to more and worse\nfaults than, perhaps, any other single cause. But, then, this Christian\nfeeling towards one another, how is it to be gained but by a Christian\nfeeling towards Christ? and where are we to learn brotherly love in all\nour common dealings, but from a grateful thought of that Divine love\ntowards us all which is shown forth in the sacrament of the Lord's\nSupper; inasmuch as, so often as we eat that bread and drink that cup,\nwe do show the Lord's death till He come.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLUKE i. 3, 4.\n\n_It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all\nthings from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent\nTheophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things\nwherein thou hast been instructed_.\n\n\nThese words, from the preface to St. Luke's Gospel, contain in them one\nor two points on which it may be of use to dwell; and not least so at\nthe present time, when they are more frequently brought under our notice\nthan was the case a few years ago. On a subject which we never, or very\nrarely hear mentioned, it may be difficult to excite attention; and, as\na general rule, there is little use in making the attempt. But when\nnames and notions are very frequently brought to our ears, and in a\ndegree to our minds, then it becomes important that we should comprehend\nthe matter to which they relate clearly and correctly; and a previous\ninterest respecting it may be supposed to exist, which make further\nexplanation acceptable.\n\nSt. Luke tells Theophilus that it seemed good to him to write in order\nan account of our Lord's life and death, that Theophilus might know the\ncertainty of those things in which he had been instructed; and this, as\na general rule, might well describe one great use of the Scripture to\neach of us, as individual members of Christ's Church--it enables us to\nknow the certainty of the things in which we have been instructed. We do\nnot, in the first instance, get our knowledge of Christ from the\nScriptures,--we, each of us, I mean as individuals,--but from the\nteaching of our parents first; then of our instructors, and from books\nfitted for the instruction of children; whether it be the Catechism of\nthe Church, or books written by private persons, of which we know that\nthere are many. But as our minds open, and our opportunities of judging\nfor ourselves increase, then the Scripture presents itself to acquaint\nus with the certainty of what we had heard already; to show us the\noriginal and perfect truth, of which we have received impressions\nbefore, but such as were not original nor perfect; to confirm and\nenforce all that was good and true in our early teaching; and if it\nshould so happen that it contained any thing of grave error mixed with\ntruth, then to enable us to discover and reject it.\n\nIt is apparent, then, that the Scripture, to do this, must have an\nauthority distinct from, and higher than, that of our early teaching;\nbut yet it is no less true that it comes to us individually recommended,\nin the first instance, by the authority of our early teaching, and\nreceived by us, not for its own sake, but for the sake of those who put\nit into our hands. What child can, by possibility, go into the evidence\nwhich makes it reasonable to believe the Bible, and to reject the\nauthority of the Koran? Our children believe the Bible for our sakes;\nthey look at it with respect, because we tell them that it ought to be\nrespected; they read it, and learn it, because we desire them; they\nacquire a habit of veneration for it long before they could give any\nother reason for venerating it than their parents' authority. And\nblessed be God that they do; for, as it has been well said, if we their\nparents do not endeavour to give our children habits of love and respect\nfor what is good and true, Satan will give them habits of love for what\nis evil: for the child must receive impressions from without; and it is\nGod's wisdom that he should receive these impressions from his parents,\nwho have the strongest interest in his welfare, and who have besides\nthat instinctive parental love which, more surely, as well as more\npurely, than any possible sense of interest, makes them earnestly desire\ntheir child's good.\n\nBut when our children are old enough to understand and to inquire, do we\nthen content ourselves with saying that they must take our word for it;\nthat the Bible is true because we tell them so? Where is the father who\ndoes not feel, first, that he himself is not fitted to be an infallible\nauthority; and, secondly, that if he were, he should be thwarting the\nprovidence of God, who has willed not simply that we should believe with\nunderstanding. He gladly therefore observes the beginnings of a spirit\nof inquiry in his son's mind, knowing that it is not inconsistent with a\nbelief in truth, but is a necessary step to that which alone in a man\ndeserves the name of belief--a belief, namely, sanctioned by reason.\nWith what pleasure does he point out to his son the grounds of his own\nfaith! how gladly does he introduce him to the critical and historical\nevidence for the truth of the Scriptures, that he may complete the work\nwhich he had long since begun, and deliver over the faith which had been\nso long nursed under the shade of parental authority, to the care of his\nson's own conscience and reason!\n\nWe see clearly that our individual faith, although grounded in the first\ninstance on parental authority, yet rests afterwards on wholly different\ngrounds; namely, on the direct evidence in confirmation of it which is\npresented to our own minds. But with regard to those who are called the\nFathers of the Church, it is contended sometimes that we do receive the\nScriptures, in the end, upon their authority: and it is argued, that if\ntheir authority is sufficient for so great a thing as this, it must be\nsufficient for every thing else; that if, in short, we believe the\nScriptures for their sake, then we ought also to believe other things\nwhich they may tell us, for their sake, even though they are not to be\nfound in Scripture.\n\nIn the argument there is this great fault, that it misstates the\nquestion at the outset. The authority of the Fathers, as they are\ncalled, is never to any sound mind the only reason for believing in the\nScriptures; I think it is by no means so much as the principle reason.\nIt is one reason, amongst many; but not the strongest. And, in like\nmanner, their authority in other points, if there were other and\nstronger reasons which confirmed it,--as in many cases there are,--is\nand ought to be respected. But, because we lay a certain stress upon it,\nit does not follow that we should do well to make it bear the whole\nweight of the building. Because we believe the Scriptures, partly on the\nauthority of the Fathers, as they are called, but more for other\nreasons, does it follow that we should equally respect the authority of\nthe Fathers when there are no other reasons in support of it, but many\nwhich make against it?\n\nIn truth, however, the internal evidence in favour of the authenticity\nand genuineness of the Scriptures is that on which the mind can rest\nwith far greater satisfaction than on any external testimonies, however\nvaluable. On one point, which might seem most to require other\nevidence--the age, namely, and origin of the writings of the New\nTestament--it has been wonderfully ordered that the books, generally\nspeaking, are their own witness. I mean that their peculiar language\nproves them to have been written by persons such as the apostles were,\nand such as the Christian writers immediately following them were not;\npersons, namely, whose original language and habits of thinking were\nthose of Jews, and to whom the Greek in which they wrote was, in its\nlanguage and associations, essentially foreign. I do not dwell on the\nmany other points of internal evidence: it is sufficient to say that\nthose who are most familar with such inquiries, and who best know how\nlittle any external testimony can avail in favour of a book where the\ninternal evidence is against it, are most satisfied that the principal\nwritings of the New Testament do contain abundantly in themselves, for\ncompetent judges, the evidence of their own genuineness and\nauthenticity.\n\nThat the testimony of the early Christian writers goes along with this\nevidence and confirms it, is matter indeed of sincere thankfulness;\nbecause more minds, perhaps, are able to believe on external evidence\nthan on internal. But of this testimony of the Christian writers it is\nessential to observe, that two very important points are such as do\nindeed affect this particular question much, but yet do not confer any\nvalue on the judgment of the witness in other matters. When a very early\nChristian writer quotes a passage from the New Testament, such as we\nfind it now in our Bibles, it is indeed an argument, which all can\nunderstand, that he had before him the same Bible which we have, and\nthat though he lived so near to the beginning of the gospel, yet that\nsome parts of the New Testament must have been written still nearer to\nit. This is an evidence to the age of the New Testament, valuable indeed\nto us, but implying in the writer who gives it no qualities which confer\nauthority; it merely shows that the book which he read must have existed\nbefore he could quote it. A second point of evidence is, when a very\nearly Christian writer quotes any part of the New Testament as being\nconsidered by those to whom he was writing as an authority. This, again,\nis a valuable piece of testimony; but neither does it imply any general\nwisdom or authority in the writer who gives it: its value is derived\nmerely from the age at which he lived, and not from his personal\ncharacter. And with regard to the general reception of the New Testament\nby the Christians of his time, which, in the case supposed, he states as\na fact, no doubt that the general opinion of the early Christians,\nwhere, as in this case, we can be sure that it is reported correctly, is\nan authority, and a great authority, in favour of the Scriptures:\ncombined, as it is, with the still stronger internal evidence of the\nbooks themselves, it is irresistible. But it were too much to argue\nthat, therefore, it was alone sufficient, not only when destitute of\nother evidence, but if opposed to it; and especially if it should happen\nto be opposed to that very Scripture which we know they acknowledged to\nbe above themselves, but which we do not know that they were enabled in\nall cases either rightly to interpret or faithfully to follow.\n\nWhen, therefore, we are told that, as we believe the Scriptures\nthemselves upon tradition, so we should believe other things also, the\nanswer is, that we do not believe the Scriptures either entirely or\nprincipally, upon what is called tradition; but for their own internal\nevidence; and that the opinions of the early Christians, like those of\nother men, may be very good in certain points, and to a certain degree,\nwithout being good in all points, and absolutely; that many a man's\njudgment would justly weigh with us, in addition to other strong reasons\nin the case itself, when we should by no means follow it where we were\nclear that there were strong reasons against it. This, indeed, is so\nobvious, that it seems almost foolish to be at the trouble of stating\nit; but what is so absurd in common life, that the contrary to it is a\nmere truism, is, unfortunately, when applied to a subject with which we\nare not familiar, often considered as an unanswerable argument, if it\nhappen to suit our disposition or our prejudices.\n\nBut, although the Scripture is to the Church, and to the individual,\ntoo, who is able to judge for himself, the only decisive authority in\nmatters of faith, yet we must not forget that it comes to us as it did\nto Theophilus, to persuade us of the certainty of things in which we\nhave been already instructed; not to instruct from the beginning, by\nitself alone, those to whom its subject is entirely strange: in other\nwords, it is and ought to be the general rule, that the Church teaches,\nand the Scripture confirms that teaching: or, if it be in any part\nerroneous, reproves it. For some appear to think, that by calling the\nScripture the sole authority in matters of faith, we mean to exclude the\nChurch altogether; and to call upon every man,--nay, upon every\nchild,--to make out his own religion for himself from the volume of the\nScriptures. The explanation briefly given is this; that while the\nScripture alone teaches the Church, the Church teaches individuals; and\nthat the authority of her teaching, like that of all human teaching,\nwhether of individuals or societies, varies justly according to\ncircumstances; being received, as it ought to be, almost implicitly by\nsome, as a parent's is by a child, and by others listened to with\nrespect, as that which is in the main agreeable to the truth, but still\nnot considered to be, nor really claiming to be received as, infallible.\nBut this part of the subject will require to be considered by itself on\nanother occasion.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLUKE i. 3,4.\n\n_It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all\nthings from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent\nTheophilus, that than mightest know the certainty of those things in\nwhich thou hast been instructed_.\n\n\nI said at the conclusion of my lecture, last Sunday, that when we of the\nChurch of England assert that the Scripture is the sole authority in\nmatters of faith, we by no means mean to exclude the office of the\nChurch, nor to assert any thing so extravagant, as that it is the duty\nof every person to sit down with the volume of the Scriptures in his\nhand, and to make out from that alone, without listening to any human\nauthority, what is the revelation made by God to man. But I know that\nmany are led to adopt notions no less extravagant of the authority of\nthe Church and of tradition,--even to the full extent maintained by the\nChurch of Rome,--because they see no other refuge from what appears to\nthem, and not unreasonably, so miserable and so extreme a folly; for an\nextreme and a most miserable folly doubtless it would be, in any one, to\nthrow aside all human aid except his own; to disregard alike the wisdom\nof individuals, and the agreeing decisions of bodies of men; to act as\nif none but himself had ever loved truth, or had been able to discover\nit; and as if he himself did possess both the will and the power to\ndo so.\n\nThis is so foolish, that I doubt whether any one ever held such\nnotions, and, much more, whether be acted upon them. But is it more wise\nto run from one form of error into its opposite, which, generally\nspeaking, is no less foolish and extravagant? What should we say of a\nman who could see no middle course between never asking for advice, and\nalways blindly following it; between never accepting instruction upon\nany subject, and believing his instructors infallible? And this last\ncomparison, with our particular situation here, will enable us, I think,\nby referring to our own daily experience, to understand the present\nquestion sufficiently. The whole system of education supposes,\nundoubtedly, that the teacher, in those matters which he teaches, should\nbe an authority to the taught: a learner in any matter must rely on the\nbooks, and on the living instructors, out of which and from whom he is\nto learn. There are difficulties, certainly, in all learning; but we do\nnot commonly see them increased by a disposition on the part of the\nlearner to question and dispute every thing that is told him. There is a\nfeeling rather of receiving what he is told implicitly; and, by so\ndoing, he learns: but does it ever enter into his head that his teacher\nis infallible? or does any teacher of sane mind wish him to think so?\nAnd observe, now, what is the actual process: the mind of the learner is\ngenerally docile, trustful, respectful towards his teacher; aware, also,\nof his own comparative ignorance. It is certainly most right that it\nshould be so. But this really teachable and humble learner finds a false\nspelling in one of his books; or hears his teacher, from oversight, say\none word in his explanation instead of another: does he cease to be\nteachable and humble,--is it really a want of childlike faith, and an\nindulgence of the pride of reason, if he decides that the false spelling\nwas an error of the press; that the word which his teacher used was a\nmistake? Yet errors, mistakes, of how trifling a kind soever, are\ninconsistent with infallibility; and the perceiving that they are errors\nis an exercise of our individual judgment upon our instructors. To hear\nsome men talk, we should think that no boy could do so without losing\nall humility and all teachableness; without forthwith supposing that he\nwas able to be his own instructor.\n\nI have begun on purpose with an elementary case, in which a very young\nboy might perceive an error in his books, or in his instructors,\nwithout, in any degree, forfeiting his true humility. But we will now go\nsomewhat farther: we will take a more advanced student, such as the\noldest of those among you, who are still learners, and who know that\nthey have much to learn, but who, having been learners for some time\npast, have also acquired some knowledge. In the books which they refer\nto, and from which they are constantly deriving assistance, do they\nnever observe any errors in the printing? do they never find\nexplanations given, which they perceive to be imperfect, nay, which they\noften feel to be actually wrong? And, passing from books to living\ninstructors, should we blame a thoughtful, attentive, and well-informed\npupil, because his mind did not at once acquiesce in our interpretation\nof some difficult passage; because he consulted other authorities on the\nsubject, and was unsatisfied in his judgment; the reason of his\nhesitation being, that our interpretation appeared to him to give an\nunsatisfactory sense, or to be obtained by violating the rules of\nlanguage? Is he proud, rebellious, puffed up, wanting in a teachable\nspirit, without faith, without humility, because he so ventures to judge\nfor himself of what his teacher tells him? Does such a judging for\nhimself interfere, in the slightest degree, with the relation between us\nand him? Does it make him really cease to respect us? or dispose him to\nbelieve that he is altogether beyond the reach of our instruction? Or\nare we so mad as to regard our authority as wholly set at nought,\nbecause it is not allowed to be infallible? Doubtless, it would be\nwholly set at nought, if we had presumed to be infallible. Then it would\nnot be merely that, in some one particular point, our decision had been\ndoubted, but that one point would involve our authority in all; because\nit would prove, that we had set up beforehand a false claim: and he who\ndoes so is either foolish, or a deceiver; there is apparent a flaw\neither in his understanding, or in his principles, which undoubtedly\ndoes repel respect.\n\nLet me go on a step farther still. It has been my happiness to retain,\nin after years, my intercourse with many of those who were formerly my\npupils; to know them when their minds have been matured, and their\neducation, in the ordinary sense of the term, completed. Is not the\nrelation between us altered then still more? Is it incompatible with\ntrue respect and regard, that they should now judge still more freely,\nin those very points, I mean, in which heretofore they had received my\ninstructions all but implicitly? that on points of scholarship and\ncriticism, they should entirely think for themselves? Or does this\nthinking for themselve mean, that they will begin to question all they\nhad ever learnt? or sit down to forget purposely all their school\ninstructions, and make out a new knowledge of the ancient languages for\nthemselves? Who does not know, that they whose minds are most eager to\ndiscern truth, are the very persons who prize their early instruction\nmost, and confess how much they are indebted to it; and that the\nexercise of their judgments loads them to go on freely in the same path\nin which they have walked so long, here and there it may be departing\nfrom it where they find a better line, but going on towards the same\nobject, and generally in the same direction?\n\nWhat has been the experience of my life,--the constantly observing the\nnatural union between sense and modesty; the perfect compatibility of\nrespect for instruction with freedom of judgment; the seeing how Nature\nherself teaches us to proportion the implicitness of our belief to our\nconsciousness of ignorance: to rise gradually and gently from a state of\npassively leaning, as it were, on the arm of another, to resting more\nand more of our weight on our own limbs, and, at last, to standing\nalone, this has perpetually exemplified our relations, as individuals,\nto the Church. Taught by her, in our childhood and youth, under all\ncircumstances; taught by her, in the great majority of instances,\nthrough our whole lives; never, in any case, becoming so independent of\nher as we do in riper years, of the individual instructor of our youth;\nshe has an abiding claim on our respect, on our deference, on our\nregard: but if it should be, that her teaching contained any thing at\nvariance with God's word, we should perceive it more or less clearly,\naccording to our degrees of knowledge; we should trust or mistrust our\njudgment, according to our degree of knowledge; but in the last resort,\nas we suppose that even a young boy might be sure that his book was in\nerror, in the case of a manifest false print, so there may be things so\ncertainly inconsistent with Scripture, that a common Christian may be\nable to judge of them, and to say that they are like false prints in his\nlesson, they are manifest errors, not to be followed, but avoided. So\nfar he may be said to judge of his teacher; but not the less will he\nrespect and listen to her authority in general, unless she has herself\nmade the slightest error ruinous to her authority by claiming to be in\nall points, great or small, alike infallible.\n\nMen crave a general rule for their guidance at all times, and under all\ncircumstances; whereas life is a constant call upon us to consider how\nfar one general rule, in the particular case before us, is modified by\nanother, or where one rule should be applied, and where another. To\nseparate humility from idolatry, conscience from presumption, is often\nan arduous task: to different persons there is a different besetting\ndanger; so it is under different circumstances, and at different times.\nEvery day does the seaman, on a voyage, take his observations, to know\nwhereabouts he is; he compares his position with his charts; he\nconsiders the direction of the wind, and the set of the current, or\ntide; and from all these together, he judges on which side his danger\nlies, on what course he should steer, or how much sail he may venture to\ncarry. This is an image of our own condition: we cannot have a general\nrule to tell us where we should follow others, and where we must differ\nfrom them; to say what is modesty, and what is indolence; what is a\nproper deference to others, and what is a trusting in man so far, that\nit becomes a want of trust in God. Only, we are sure that these are\npoints which we must decide for ourselves; the human will must be free,\nso far as other men are concerned. If we say, that we will implicitly\ntrust others, then there is our decision, which no one could have made\nfor us, and which is our own choice as to the principle of our lives;\nfor which choice, we each of us, and no one else in all the world, must\nanswer at the judgment-seat of God. Only, in that word there is our\ncomfort, that, for our conduct in so doubtful a voyage as that of life,\namidst so many conflicting opinions, each courting our adherence to\nit,--amidst such a variety of circumstances without, and of feelings\nwithin, and on which, notwithstanding, our condition for all eternity\nmust depend,--we shall be judged, not by erring man, not by our own\nfallible conscience, but by the all-wise, and all-righteous God. With\nhim, after all, even in the very courts of his holy Church, we yet, in\none sense, must each of us live alone. On his gracious aid, given to our\nown individual souls, and determining our own individual wills, depends\nthe character of our life here and for ever. Trusting to him, praying to\nhim, we shall then make use of all the means that his goodness has\nprovided for us; we shall ask counsel of friends; we shall listen to\nteachers; we shall delight to be in the company of God's people, of one\nmind, and of one voice, with the good and wise of every generation; we\nshall be afraid of leaning too much to our own understanding, knowing\nhow it is encompassed with error; but knowing that other men are\nencompassed with error also, and that we, and not they, must answer for\nour choice before Christ's judgment, we must, in the last resort, if our\nconscience and sense of truth cannot be persuaded that other men speak\naccording to God's will,--we must follow our own inward convictions,\nthough all the world were to follow the contrary.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJOHN ix. 29.\n\n_We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not from\nwhence he is_.\n\n\nThe questions involved in the conversations recorded in this chapter,\nare of great practical importance. Not perhaps of immediate practical\nimportance to all in this present congregation; but yet sure to be of\nimportance to all hereafter, and of importance to many at this actual\nmoment. Nay, they are of importance to those who, from their youth,\nmight be thought to have little to do with them, either where the mind\nis already anxious and inquiring beyond its years, or where it happens\nto be exposed to strong party influences, or that its passions are\nlikely to be engaged on a particular side, however little the\nunderstanding may be interested in the matter. In fact, in religious\nknowledge, as in other things, the omissions of youth are hard to make\nup in manhood; they who grow up with a very small knowledge of the\nScriptures, and with no understanding of any of the questions connected\nwith them, can with difficulty make up for this defect in after years;\nthey become, according to the influences to which, they may happen to be\nsubjected, either unbelieving or fanatical.\n\nIf we were to question the youngest boy about the language held in this\nchapter by the Pharisees, and by the man who had been born blind, we\nshould, no doubt, be answered, that what the Pharisees said, was wrong;\nand what the man born blind said, was right. This would be the answer\nwhich it would be thought proper to give; because it would be perceived\nthat the Pharisees' language expressed unbelief in Christ; and that the\nman born blind was expressing gratitude and faith towards him. Nor,\nindeed, should we expect a young boy to go much farther than this; for\nsuch general impressions are, at his age, as much many times as can be\nlooked for. But it is strange to observe how much this want of\nunderstanding outlasts the age of boyhood; how apt men are to judge\naccording to names, and to see no farther: to say, that the language of\nthe Pharisees was wrong, because they find it employed against Christ;\nbut yet to use the very same language themselves, whilst they think that\nthey are all the while speaking for Christ.\n\nBut in this conversation between the Pharisees and the blind man, there\nare, indeed, as I said, points involved of very great importance; it\ncontains the question as to the degree of weight to be attached to\nmiracles; and the question, no less grave, with what degree of tenacity\nwe should reject what claims to be a new truth, because it seems to be\nat a variance with supposed old truths to which we have been long\naccustomed to cling with undoubting affection.\n\nThe question as to the weight of miracles is contained in the sixteenth\nverse. Some of the Pharisees said, This man is not of God, because he\nkeepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner\ndo such miracles? That is to say, the first party rejected the miracles\nbecause they seemed to be wrought in favour of a supposed false\ndoctrine; the other accepted the doctrine, because it seemed warranted\nto their belief by the miracles.\n\nThe second question is contained in the words of the text, \"We know\nthat God spake to Moses; as for this fellow, we know not from whence he\nis.\" We have been taught from our childhood, and have the belief\nassociated with every good and pious thought in us, that God spake to\nMoses, and gave him the law as our rule of life; but as for this fellow,\nwe know not from whence he is. His works may be wonderful, his words may\nbe specious; but we never heard of him before, and we cannot tear up all\nthe holiest feelings of our nature to receive a new doctrine. We will\nhold to the old way in which, we were taught by our fathers to walk, and\nin which they walked before us.\n\nThis last question is one which, as we well know, is continually\npresented to our minds. No one says, that the Pharisees were right, any\nmore than those very Pharisees thought that their fathers were right who\nhad killed the prophets. But as our Lord told them, that they were in\ntruth the children in spirit of those who had killed the prophets;\nbecause, although they had been taught to condemn the outward form of\ntheir fathers' action, they were repeating it themselves in its\nprinciples and spirit; so many of those who condemn the Pharisees are\nreally their exact image, repeating now against the truths of their own\ndays the very same arguments which the Pharisees used against the truths\nof theirs.\n\nFor the arguments of these Pharisees, both as regards miracles, and as\nregards the suspicion with which we should look on a doctrine opposed to\nthe settled opinions of our lives, have in fact, in both cases, a great\nmixture of justice in them; and it is this very mixture which we may\nhope beguiled them; and also beguiles those, who in our own days repeat\ntheir language.\n\nFor most certain it is that the Scripture itself supposes the\npossibility of false miracles. The case is especially provided against\nin Deuteronomy. It there says, \"If there arise among you a prophet or a\ndreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or\nthe wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go\nafter other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou\nshalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet or that dreamer of\ndreams, for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the\nLord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.\" Observe how\nnearly this comes to the language of the Pharisees, \"This man is not of\nGod, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.\" \"Here,\" they might have\nsaid, \"is the very case foreseen in the Scriptures: a prophet has\nwrought a sign and a wonder, which is at the same time a breach of God's\ncommandments. God has told us that such signs are not to be heeded, that\nhe does but prove us with them to see whether we love him truly: knowing\nthat where there is a love of him, the heart will heed no sign or\nwonder, how great soever, which would tempt it to think lightly of his\ncommandments.\" Shall we say that this is not a just interpretation of\nthe passage in Deuteronomy? shall we say that this is the language of\nunbelief or of sin? or, rather, shall we not confess that it is in\naccordance with God's word, and holy, and faithful, and true? And yet\nthis most just language led those who used it to reject one of Christ's\ngreatest miracles, and to refuse the salvation of the Holy One of God.\nCan God's truth be contrary to itself? or can truth and goodness lead so\ndirectly to error and to evil?\n\nNow, then, where is the solution to be found? for some solution there\nmust be, unless we will either condemn a most true principle, or defend\na most false conclusion. The error lies in confounding God's moral law\nwith his law of ordinances; precisely the same error which led the Jews\nto stone Stephen. The law had undoubtedly commanded that he who\nblasphemed God should be stoned; the Jews called Stephen's speaking\nagainst the holy place and against the law blasphemy against God, and\nthey murdered God's faithful servant and Christ's blessed martyr. Even\nso the law had said, Let no miracle be so great as to tempt you to\nforsake God: the Jews considered the forsaking the law of the Sabbath to\nbe a forsaking of God, and they said that Christ's miracle was a work of\nSatan. There is no blasphemy into which we may not fall, no crime from\nwhich we shall be safe, if we do not separate in our minds most clearly\nsuch laws as relate to moral and eternal duties, and such as relate to\noutward or positive ordinances, even when commanded or instituted by God\nhimself. It is most false to say that the fact of their being commanded\nsets them on a level with each other. So long as they are commanded to\nus, it is no doubt our duty to obey them equally: but the difference\nbetween them is this, that whereas the first are commanded to us and to\nour children for ever, and no possible evidence can be so great as to\npersuade us that God has repealed them; (for the utmost conceivable\namount of external testimony, such as that of miracles, could only lead\nto madness;--the human mind might, conceivably, be overwhelmed by the\nconflict, but should never and could never be tempted to renounce its\nvery being, and lie against its Maker;) the others, that is, the\ncommands to observe certain forms and ordinances, are in their nature\nessentially temporary and changeable: we have no right to assume that\nthey will be continued, and therefore a miracle at any time might justly\nrequire us to forsake them; and not only an outward miracle, but the\nchanged circumstances of the times may speak God's will no less clearly\nthan a miracle, and may absolutely make it our duty to lay aside those\nordinances, which to us hitherto, and to our fathers before us, were\nindeed the commands of God.\n\nNow let us take the other question,--which may indeed be called a\nquestion as to the allowableness of resting confidently in truth already\ngained, without consenting to examine the claims of something asserting\nitself to be a new truth, yet which seems to interfere with the old. Is\nnothing within us to be safe from possible doubt, or is everything? Or\nis it here, as in the former case, that there are truths so tried and so\nsacred that it were blasphemy to question them; while there are others,\noften closely intermixed with these, which are not so sacred, because\nthey are not eternal; which may and ought to be examined when occasion\nrequires; and which may be laid aside, or exchanged rather, for some\nhigher truth, if it shall reasonably appear that their work is done, and\nthat if we retain them longer they will change their character, and\nbecome no longer true but false. \"David having served his own generation\nby the will of God, fell asleep, and was gathered unto his fathers, and\nsaw corruption; but He whom God raised again saw no corruption.\" This is\nthe difference between positive ordinances and moral: the first serve\ntheir appointed number of generations by the will of God, and then are\ngathered to their fathers, and perish; the latter are by the right hand\nof God exalted, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.\n\n\"We know,\" said the Jews, \"that God spake to Moses; but for this fellow,\nwe know not from whence he is.\" There was a time when their fathers had\nheld almost the very same language to Moses: \"they refused him, saying\nWho made thee a ruler and a judge over us?\" But now they knew that God\nhad spoken to Moses, but were refusing Him who was sent unto them after\nMoses. God had spoken unto Moses, it was most true: he had spoken to him\nand given him commandments which were to last for ever; and which\nChrist, so far from undoing, was sent to confirm and to perfect; he had\nspoken to him other things, which were not to last for ever, but yet\nwhich were not to be cast away with dishonour; but having, in the\nfulness of time, done their work, were then, like David, to fall asleep.\nAll that was required of the Jews, was not to reject as blasphemy a\ndoctrine which should distinguish between these two sorts of truths:\nwhich in no way requires to believe that God had not spoken to\nMoses,--which, on the contrary, maintained that he had so spoken,--but\nonly contended that he has also, in these last days, spoken unto us by\nhis Son; and that his Son, bearing the full image of Divine authority,\nmight well be believed if he spoke of some parts of Moses's law as\nhaving now fulfilled their work, seeing that they were such parts only\nas, by their very nature, were not eternal: they had not been from the\nbeginning, and therefore they would not live on to the end.\n\nThe practical conclusion is, that, whilst we hold fast, with an\nundoubting and unwavering faith, all truths which, by their very nature,\nare eternal, and to deny which is no other than to speak against the\nHoly Ghost, we should listen patiently to, and pass no harsh judgment\non, those who question other truths not necessarily eternal, while they\ndeclare that they are, to the best of their consciences, seeking to obey\nGod and Christ. When I say, that we should listen patiently, and not\npass harsh judgments upon those who question such points, I say it\nwithout at all meaning that we should agree with them. It would be\nmonstrous indeed, to suppose that old opinions are never combated\nwrongly; that old institutions are never pronounced to have lived out\ntheir appointed time, when, in fact, they are still in their full\nvigour. But the language of those who defend the doctrines and the\nordinances of the Church may, and often does, partake of the sin of that\nof the Pharisees, even when those against whom they are contending, are\nnot, like Christ, bringing in a new and higher truth, but an actual\nerror. To point out that it is an error, to defend ourselves and the\nChurch from it, is most right, and most highly our duty; but it is\nneither right, nor our duty, but the very sin of the Pharisees, to put\nit down merely by saying, \"As for this fellow, we know not from whence\nhe is;\" to treat the whole question as an impiety, and to deny the\nvirtues and the holiness of those who maintain it, because they are, as\nwe call it, \"speaking blasphemous things against the holy place and\nagainst the law.\" The mischief of this to ourselves is infinite; nay, in\nits extreme, it leads to language which is fearfully resembling the very\nblasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for, when we say, as has been said,\nthat where men's lives are apparently good and holy, and their doctrines\nare against those of the Church, the holiness is an unreal holiness, and\nthat we cannot see into their hearts, this is, in fact, denying the Holy\nSpirit's most infallible sign--the fruits of righteousness; and being\npositive rather of the truth of the Church, than of the truth of God.\nThere is nothing so certain as that goodness is from God; nothing so\ncertain as that sin is not from God; nothing so certain as that sin is\nnot from him. To deny, or doubt this, is to dispute the greatest\nassurance of truth that God has ever been pleased to give to us. It does\nnot, by any means, follow, that all good men are free from error, nor\nthat error is less error because good men hold it; but to make the error\nwhich is less certain, a reason for disputing the goodness which is more\ncertain, is the spirit, not of God, nor of the Church of God, but of\nthose false zealots who put an idol in God's place; of such as rejected\nChrist and murdered Stephen.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXIV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1 CORINTHIANS xiv, 20.\n\n_Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit, in malice be ye\nchildren, but in understanding be men_.\n\n\nIt would be going a great deal too far to say, that they who fulfilled\nthe latter part of this command, were sure also to fulfil the former;\nthat they who were men in understanding, were, therefore, likely to be\nchildren in malice. But the converse holds good, with remarkable\ncertainty, that they who are children in understanding, are\nproportionally apt to be men in malice: that is, in proportion as men\nneglect that which should be the guide of their lives, so are they left\nto the mastery of their passions; and as nature and outward\ncircumstances do not allow these passions to remain as quiet and as\nlittle grown as they are in childhood,--for they are sure to ripen\nwithout any trouble of ours,--so men are left with nothing but the evils\nof both ages, the vices of the man, and the unripeness and ignorance of\nthe child.\n\nIt is indeed a strange and almost incredible thing, that any should ever\nhave united in their minds the notions of innocence and ignorance as\napplied to any but literal children: nor is it less strange, that any\nshould ever have been afraid of their understanding, and should have\nsought goodness through prejudice, and blindness, and folly. Compared\nwith this, their conduct was infinitely reasonable who weakened and\ntormented their bodies in order to strengthen, as they thought, their\nspiritual nature. Such conduct was, by comparison, reasonable because\nthere is a great deal of bodily weakness and discomfort, which really\ndoes not interfere with the strength and purity of our character in\nitself, although, by abridging our activity, it may lessen our means of\nusefulness. But what should we say of a man who directed his ill usage\nof his body to that part of our system which is most closely connected\nwith the brain; who were purposely to impair his nervous system, and\nsubject himself to those delusions and diseased views of things which\nare the well-known result of any disorder there? Yet this is precisely\nwhat they do who seek to mortify and lower their understanding. It is as\nimpossible that they should become better men by such a process, as if\nthey were literally to take medicines to affect their nerves or their\nbrain, in the hope of becoming idiotic or delirious. It is, in fact, the\nworst kind of self-murder; for it is a presumptuous destroying of that\nwhich is our best life, because we dread to undergo those trials which\nGod has appointed for the perfecting both of it and of us.\n\nBut from the wilful blindness of these men, let us turn to the Christian\nwisdom of the Apostle: \"In malice be ye children, but in understanding\nbe men.\" Let us turn to what is recorded of our Lord in his early life,\nat that age when, as man, the cultivation of his understanding was his\nparticular duty--that he was found in the temple, sitting in the midst\nof the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions: not asking\nquestions only, as one too impatient or too vain to wait for an answer,\nor to consider it when he had received it; not hearing only, as one\ncareless and passive, who thinks that the words of wisdom can improve\nhis mind by being indolently admitted through the ears, with no more\neffort than his body uses when it is refreshed by a cooling air, or when\nit is laid down in running water; but both hearing and asking questions;\ndocile and patient, yet active and intelligent; knowing that the wisdom\nwas to be communicated from without, but that it belongs to the vigorous\nexercise of the power within, to apprehend it, and to convert it to\nnourishment.\n\nNow, what is recorded of our Lord for our example, as to the manner in\nwhich he received instruction when delivered by word of mouth, this same\nthing should we do with that instruction, which, as is the ease with\nmost of ours, we derive from reading. Put the Scriptures in the place of\nthose living teachers whom Christ was so eager to hear; the words of\nChrist, and of his Spirit, instead of those far inferior guides from\nwhom, notwithstanding, he, for our sakes, once submitted to learn; and\nwhat can be more exact than the application of the example? Let us be\nfound in God's true temple, in the communion of his faithful\npeople,--his universal Church, sitting down as it were, surrounded by\nthe voices of the oracles of God--prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ\nhimself: let us be found with the record of these oracles in our hands,\nboth reading them and asking them questions.\n\nIt is quite clear that what hinders a true understanding of anything is\nvagueness; and it is by this process of asking questions that vagueness\nis to be dispelled: for, in the first place, it removes one great\nvagueness, or indistinctness, which is very apt to beset the minds of\nmany; namely, the not clearly seeing whether they understand a thing or\nno; and much more, the not seeing what it is that they do understand,\nand what it is which they do not. Take any one of our Lord's parables,\nand read it even to a young child: there will be something of an\nimpression conveyed, and some feelings awakened; but all will be\nindistinct; the child will not know whether he understands or no, but\nwill soon gain the habit of supposing that he does, as that is at once\nthe least troublesome, and the least unpleasant to our vanity. And this\nsame vague impression is often received by uneducated persons from\nreading or bearing either the Scriptures or sermons; it is by no means\nthe same as if they had read or heard something in an unknown language;\nbut yet they can give no distinct account of what they have heard or\nread; they do not know how far they understand it, and how far they do\nnot. Here, then, is the use of \"asking questions,\"--asking questions of\nourselves or of our book, I mean, for I am supposing the case of our\nreading, when it can rarely happen that we have any living person at\nhand to give us an answer. Now, taking the earliest and simplest state\nof knowledge, it is plain that the first question to put to ourselves\nwill be, \"Do I understand the meaning of all the words and expressions\nin what I have been reading?\" I know that this is taking things at their\nvery beginning, but it is my wish to do so. Now, so plain and forcible\nis the English of our Bible, generally speaking, that the words\ndifficult to be understood will probably not be many: yet some such do\noccur, owing, in some instances, to a change of the language; as in the\nwords \"let,\" and \"prevent,\" which now signify, the one, \"to allow, or\nsuffer to be done,\" and the other \"to stop, or hinder,\" but which\nsignified, when our translation was made, the first, \"to stop or\nhinder,\" and the second, \"to be beforehand with us;\" as in the prayer,\n\"Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with thy most gracious favour;\"\nthe meaning is, \"Let thy favour be with us beforehand, O Lord, in\nwhatever we are going to do.\" In other instances the words are difficult\nbecause they are used in a particular sense, such as we do not learn\nfrom our common language; of which kind are the words \"elect,\" \"saints,\"\n\"justification,\" \"righteousness,\" and many others. Now, if we ask\nourselves \"whether we understand these words or no,\" our common sense,\nwhen thus questioned, will readily tell us, whether we do or not;\nalthough if we had not directly asked the question, it might never have\nthought about it. Of course, our common sense cannot tell us what the\ntrue meaning is; that is a matter of information, and our means of\ngaining information may be more or less; but still, a great step is\ngained, the mist is partly cleared away; we can say to ourselves, \"Here\nis something which I do understand, and here is something which I do\nnot; I must keep the two distinct, for the first I may use, the second I\ncannot; I will mark it down as a thing about which I may get explanation\nat another time; but at present it is a blank in the picture, it is the\nsame as if it were not there.\" This, then, is the first process of\nself-questioning, adapted, as I have already said, to those whose\nknowledge is most elementary.\n\nSuppose, however, that we are got beyond difficulties of this sort--that\nthe words and particular expressions of the Scriptures are mostly clear\nto us. Now, take again one of our Lord's parables; say, for instance,\nthat of the labourers in the vineyard: we read it, and find that he who\nwent to work at the eleventh hour received as much as he who had been\nworking all the day. This seems to say, that he who begins to serve God\nin his old age shall receive his crown of glory no less than he who has\nserved him all his life. But now try the process of self-questioning:\nwhat do I think that Christ means me to learn from this? what is the\nlesson to me? what is it to make me feel, or think, or do? If it makes\nme think that I shall receive an equal crown of glory if I begin to\nserve God in my old age, and therefore if it leads me to live\ncarelessly, this is clearly making Christ encourage wickedness; and such\na thought is blasphemy. He cannot mean me to learn this from it: let me\nlook at the parable again. Who is it who is reproved in those words\nwhich seem to contain its real object? It is one who complains of God\nfor having rewarded others equally with himself. Now this I can see is\nnot a good feeling: it is pride and jealousy. In order, then to learn\nwhat the parable means me to learn, let me put myself in the position of\nthose reproved in it. If I complain that others are rewarded by God as\nmuch as I am, it is altogether a bad feeling, and one which I ought to\ncheck; for I have nothing to do with God's dealings to others, let me\nthink of what concerns myself. Here I have the lesson of the parable\ncomplete: and here I find it is useful for me. But if I take it for a\ndifferent object, and suppose that it means to encourage waiting till\nthe eleventh hour--waiting till we are old before we repent--we find\nthat we make it only actually to be mischievous to us. And thus we gain\na great piece of knowledge: namely, that the parables of our Lord are\nmostly designed to teach, some one particular lesson, with respect to\nsome one particular fault: and that if we take them generally, as if all\nin them was applicable to all persons, whether exposed to that\nparticular fault or not, we shall absolutely be in danger of deriving\nmischief from them instead of good. It is true, that in this particular\nparable, the gross wickedness of such an interpretation as I have\nmentioned is guarded against even in the story itself; because those who\nworked only at the eleventh hour are expressly said to have stood idle\nso long only because no man had hired them; their delay, therefore, was\nno fault of their own. But even if this circumstance had been left out,\nit would have been just the same; because the general rule is, that we\napply to a parable only for its particular lesson, and do not strain it\nto any thing else. Had this been well understood, no one would have ever\nfound so much difficulty in understanding the parable of the\nunjust steward.\n\nThis is another great step towards the dispelling vagueness, to apply\nthe particular lesson of each part of Scripture to that state of\nknowledge, or feeling, or practice in ourselves, which it was intended\nto benefit; to apply it as a lesson to ourselves, not as a general truth\nfor our neighbours. And the very desire to do this, makes us naturally\nlook with care to the object of every passage--to see to whom it was\naddressed, and on what occasion; for this will often surely guide us to\nthe point that we want. But in order to do this, we must strive to\nclothe the whole in our own common language; to get rid of those\nexpressions which to us convey the meaning faintly; and to put it into\nsuch others as shall come most strongly home to us. This I have spoken\nof on other occasions; and I have so often witnessed the bad effects of\nnot doing so, that I am sure it may well bear to be noticed again; I\nmean the putting such words as \"persecution,\" \"the cares and riches of\nthe world,\" \"the kingdom of God,\" \"confessing Christ,\" \"denying Christ,\"\nand many others, into a language which to us has more lively reality,\nwhich makes us manifestly see that it is of us, and of our common life,\nand of our dangers, that the scripture is speaking, and not only of\nthings in a remote time and country, and under circumstances quite\nunlike our own. Therefore I have a strong objection to the use of what\nis called peculiarly religious language, because I am sure that it\nhinders us from bringing the matter of that language thoroughly home to\nus; our minds do not entirely assimilate with, it; or if they fancy that\nthey do, it is only by their becoming themselves affected, and losing\ntheir sense of the reality of things around them. For our language is\nfixed for us, and we cannot alter it; and into that common language in\nwhich we think and feel, all truth must be translated, if we would think\nand feel respecting it at once rightly, clearly, and vividly. Happy is\nhe, who, by practising this early, has imbued his own natural language\nwith the spirit of God's wisdom and holiness; and who can see, and\nunderstand, and feel them the better, because they are so put into a\nform with which he is perfectly familiar.\n\nMore might be said, very much more, but here I will now pause. In this\nworld, wherein heavenly things are, after all, hard to seize and fix\nupon, we have great need that no mists of imperfect understanding darken\nthem, over and above those of the corrupt will. To see them clearly, to\nunderstand them distinctly and vividly, may, indeed, after all be vain:\na thicker veil may yet remain behind, and we may see and understand, and\nyet perish. Only the clear sight of God in Christ can be no light\nblessing; and there may be a hope, that understanding and approving with\nall our minds his excellent wisdom, the light may warm us as well as\nassist our sight; that we may see, and not in our vague and empty sense,\nbut in the force of the scriptural meaning of the word,--may see, and\nso believe.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXV.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMATTHEW xxvi. 45, 46.\n\n_Sleep on now and take your rest; behold, the hour is at hand, and the\nSon of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be.\ngoing; behold, he is at hand that doth betray me_.\n\n\nI take these verses for my text, in the first place, because some have\nfancied a difficulty in them, and have even proposed to alter the\ntranslation, and read the first words as a question, \"Do ye still sleep\nand take your rest?\" and because they are really a very good\nillustration of our Lord's manner of speaking, a manner which it is of\nthe highest importance to us fully to understand. And, secondly, I take\nthem as a text for the general lesson which they convey to us; their\nmixture of condemnation and mercy; their view, at once looking backwards\nand forwards, not losing sight of irreparable evils of a neglected past,\nnor yet making those evils worse by so dwelling upon them as to forget\nthe still available future; not concealing from us the solemn truth,\nthat what is done cannot be undone, yet warning us also not to undo by a\nvain despair that future which may yet be done to our soul's health.\n\nFirst, a difficulty has been fancied to exist in the words, as if our\nLord had bade his disciples to do two contradictory things: telling\nthem, first, to sleep on and take their rust, and then saying, \"Rise,\nlet us be going.\" And because in St. Luke's account, when our Lord\ncomes to his disciples the last time, his words are given thus, \"Why\nsleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation:\" therefore,\nas I have said, his words in the text have been translated, \"Are ye\nsleeping and resting for the remainder of the time?\" Now, I should not\ntake up your time with things of this sort, where I believe our common\ntranslation to be most certainly right, were it not for the sake of one\nor two general remarks, which I think may not be out of place. It is a\ngeneral rule, that in passages not obscure, but appearing to contain\nsome moral difficulty, if I may so speak; that is, something which seems\ninconsistent with our notions of God's holiness, or wisdom, or justice;\nsomething, in short, of a stumbling-block, which we fear may occasion a\ntriumph to unbelievers; it is a rule, I say, that in passages of this\nkind the difficulty is not to be met by departing from the\ncommon-received translation. And the reason of this is plain; that had\nnot the commonly received translation in such cases been clearly the\nright one, it would never have come to be commonly received. Amongst the\nthousands of interpreters of Scripture, all, from the earliest time,\nanxious to remove grounds of cavil from the adversaries of their faith,\na passage would never have been translated so as to afford such a\nground, if the right translation of it could have been different. Such\nplaces are especially those in which the common translation needs not to\nbe suspected: and it is merely leading us astray from the true\nexplanation of the apparent difficulty, when we thus attempt to evade it\nby tampering with the translation. A notable instance of this was\nafforded some few years since in a new translation of some of the books\nof the Old Testament; in which it was pretended that most of those\npoints which had been most attacked by unbelievers were, in fact, mere\nmistranslations, and that the real meaning of the original was\nsomething totally different; and, in order to show the necessity of his\nalterations, the writer entirely allowed the objections of unbelievers\nto the common reading; and said that no sufficient answer had been or\ncould be made to them. This was an extreme case, and probably imposed\nonly on a very few: but less instances of the same thing are common: St.\nPaul's words about being baptized for the dead, have been twisted to all\nsorts of senses, from their natural and only possible meaning, because\nmen could not bear to believe that the superstition of being baptized as\nproxies for another could have existed at a period which they were\nresolved to consider so pure: and so in the text, a force has been put\nupon the words which they cannot bear, in order to remove a supposed\ncontradiction: and all that would have been gained by the change would\nbe, to have one instructive illustration the less of our Lord's peculiar\nmanner of discourse, and one instance the less of the inimitable way in\nwhich his language, addressed directly to the circumstances before him,\ncontains, at the same time, a general lesson, for the use of all his\ndisciples in all ages.\n\nOur Lord's habitual language was parabolical; I use the word in a wide\nsense, to include all language which is not meant to be taken according\nto the letter. Observe his conversation with the Samaritan woman; it\nbegins at once with parable, \"If thou hadst known who it was that asked\nof thee, saying, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and\nhe would have given thee living water.\" And again, \"Whoso drinketh of\nthe water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but it shall be in\nhim a well of water, springing up unto life eternal.\" This seems to have\nbeen, if I may venture to say so, the favourite language in which he\npreferred to speak; but when he found that he was not understood, then,\naccording to the nature of the case, he went on in two or three\ndifferent manners. When he, to whom all hearts were open, saw that the\nmisunderstanding was wilful, that it arose out of a disposition glad to\nfind an excuse, in his pretended obscurity, for not listening to him and\nobeying him, then, instead of explaining his language, he made it more\nand more figurative; more likely to be misunderstood, or to offend those\nwhom he knew to be disposed beforehand to misunderstand and to be\noffended. A famous example of this may be seen in the sixth chapter of\nSt. John; there he first calls himself the Bread of Life, and says, that\nwhosoever should eat of that bread should live for ever: but when he\nfound that the Jews cavilled at this language, instead of explaining it,\nhe only added expressions yet more strongly parabolical; \"Except ye eat\nthe flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in\nyou:\" and he dwells on this image so long, that we find that many of his\ndisciples, bent on interpreting it literally, and, in this sense,\nfinding it utterly shocking, went back and walked no more with him.\nAgain, when he found not a disposition to cavil, but yet a profound\nignorance of his meaning, arising from a state of mind wholly unused to\nthink of spiritual good and evil, he neither used, as to those who\nwilfully misunderstood him, language that would offend them still more,\nnor yet did he offer a direct explanation; but he broke off the\nconversation, and adopted another method of instruction. Thus, when the\nSamaritan woman, thinking only of bodily wants, answered him by saying,\n\"Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to\ndraw,\" he neither goes on to speak to her in the same language, nor yet\ndoes he explain it; but at once addresses her in a different manner,\nsaying, \"Go, call thy husband, and come hither.\" Thirdly, when he was\nspeaking to his own disciples, to whom it was given to know the\nmysteries of the kingdom of God, he generally explained his meaning,--at\nleast so far as to prevent practical error,--when he found that they had\nnot understood him. Thus, when he had said to them, \"Beware of the\nleaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod,\" and they thought\nonly of leaven and of bread in the literal sense, he upbraids them,\nindeed, for their slowness, saying, \"Are ye also yet without\nunderstanding?\" but he goes on to tell them in express terms that he did\nnot mean to speak to them of the leaven of bread. And the words of the\ntext are an exactly similar instance: his first address is parabolical;\nthat is, it is not meant to be taken to the letter; \"Sleep on now, and\ntake your rest,\" meaning, \"Ye can now do me no good by watching, for the\ntime is past, and he who betrayed me is at hand; ye might as well sleep\non now and take your rest, for I need not try you any longer.\" But, as\nthe time was really pressing, and there was a possibility that they\nmight have misunderstood his words, and have really continued to sleep,\nhe immediately added in different language, \"Rise, let us be going;\nbehold, he is at hand that doth betray me.\" We must be prepared, then,\nto find that our Lord's language, not only to the Jews at large, but\neven to his own disciples, is commonly parabolical; the worst\ninterpretation which we can give to it is commonly the literal one. His\nconversation with his disciples, just before he went out to the garden\nof Gethsemane, as recorded in the thirteenth, and following chapters of\nSt. John, is a most striking proof of this. If any one looks through\nthem, he will find how many are the comparisons, and figurative manners\nof speaking, which abound in them, and how often his disciples were at a\nloss to understand his meaning, And he himself declares this, for, at\nthe end of the sixteenth chapter, he says expressly, \"These things I\nhave spoken unto you in proverbs;\"--that is, language not to be taken\naccording to the letter;--\"the time is coming when I will no more speak\nunto you in proverbs, but will show you plainly of the Father.\" And\nthen, when he goes on to declare, what he never, it seems, had before\ntold them in such express and literal language, \"I came forth from the\nFather, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to\nmy Father,\" his disciples seem to have welcomed with joy this departure\nfrom his usual manner of speaking, and said immediately, \"Lo! now\nspeakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb: now we know that thou\nknowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by\nthis we believe that thou earnest forth from God.\"\n\nBut let us observe what it is that he said: \"A time is coming when I\nshall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but shall show you plainly of\nthe Father.\" That time came immediately. He spoke to them after his\nresurrection, opening their understandings to understand the Scriptures:\nhe spoke yet more fully, by his Spirit, after the day of Pentecost,\nleading them into all truth. And what they thus heard in the ear, they\nproclaimed, according to his bidding, upon the house-tops. When the Holy\nSpirit brought to their remembrance all that he had said to them, and\ngave their minds a spiritual judgment, to compare what they thus had\nbrought before them, to see his words in their true light and their true\nbearings, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, they were no\nniggards of this heavenly treasure; nor did they, according to the vain\nheresy of the worst corrupters of Christ's gospel, imitate and surpass\nthat sin which they had so heavily judged in Ananias. They kept back no\npart-of that which they professed and were commanded to lay wholly and\nentirely at the feet of God's church. They did not so lie to the Holy\nGhost, as to erect a wicked system of priestcraft in the place of that\nholy gospel of which they were ministers. They had no reserve of a\nsecret doctrine for themselves and a chosen few, keeping in their own\nhands the key of knowledge, and opening only half of the door; but as\nthey had freely received, so they freely gave; all that they knew, they\ntaught to all: and so, through their blessed teaching, we too can\nunderstand our Lord's words as they were taught to understand them: and\nwhat is parabolical, is no longer on that account obscure, but full of\nlight and of beauty, fulfilling the end for which it was chosen, the\nmost effective of all ways of teaching, because the liveliest.\n\nI have left myself but little space to touch upon the second part of the\nsubject--the general lesson conveyed in our Lord's-words to his\ndisciples: \"Sleep on now, and take your rest.--Rise; let us be going.\"\nHow truly do we deserve the reproof; how thankfully may we accept the\ncall. We have forfeited many opportunities which we would in vain\nrecover; we have been careless when we should have been watchful; and\nthat for which we should have watched, is now lost by our neglect; and\nit is no good to watch for it any more. Let us remember this, while it\nis called to-day; for how often is it particularly applicable to us\nhere, from the passing nature of your stay amongst us! To both you and\nus too often belongs our Lord's remonstrance, \"What, could ye not watch\nwith me one hour?\" So short a time as you stay here, could we not be\nwatching with Christ that little period: from which, if well improved,\nthere might spring forth a fruit so lasting? But, alas! we too often\nsleep it away: we do not all that we might do, nor do you; evil grows\ninstead of good, till the time is past, and you leave us; and we may as\nwell sleep on, and take our rest, so far as all that particular good\nwas concerned--the improvement, namely, of your time at this place, for\nwhich we are alike set to watch. But are we to take the words of\nreproach literally? May we really sleep on, and take our rest? Oh vain\nand wilful folly, so to misunderstand! But, lest we should\nmisunderstand, let us hear our Lord's next words: \"Rise; let us be\ngoing,\" and that instantly: the time and opportunity already lost for\never is far more than enough.--\"Rise; let us be going:\" so Christ calls\nus; for he has still other work for us to do, for him, and with him. The\nfuture is yet our own, though the past be lost. We have sinned greatly\nand irreparably; but let us not do so yet again: other opportunities are\nafforded us; the disciples would not watch with him in the garden, but\nhe calls them to go with him to his trial and his judgment; and one, we\nknow, watched by him even on his cross:--so he calls to us; so he calls\nnow; but he will not so call for ever. There will be a time when we\nmight strike out the words, \"Rise; let us be going;\" they will concern\nus then no more. It is only said, \"Sleep on now, and take your rest: all\nyour watching time has been wasted, and you can now watch no more;\"\nthere remains only to sleep--to sleep that last sleep, from which we\nshall then never wake to God and happiness, but in which we shall be\nawake for ever to sin and to misery.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXVI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n2 CORINTHIANS v. 17, 18.\n\n_Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new: and all\nthings are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_.\n\n\nI have, from time to time, spoken of that foolish misuse of the\nScriptures, by which any one opening the volume of the Bible at random,\nand taking the first words which he finds, straightway applies them\neither to himself or to his neighbour; and then boasts that he has the\nword of God on his side, and that whosoever differs from him, is\ndisputing and despising the word of God. The most extreme instances of\nthis way of proceeding are so absurd, that they could not be noticed in\nthis place becomingly; and these, of course, stand palpable to all,\nexcept to those who have allowed themselves to fall into them. But far\nshort of these manifest follies, great errors have been maintained on\ngeneral points, and great mistakes, whether of over presumption or of\nover fear, have been committed as to men's particular state, by quoting\nScripture unadvisedly; by taking hold of its words to the neglect or\nactual violation of its spirit and real meaning. This is a great and a\nvery common mischief, but yet there is a truth at the bottom of the\nerror; it is true, that the greatest questions relating to God and to\nourselves, may find their answer in the Scriptures; it is true, that if\nwe search for this answer wisely we may surely find it.\n\nConsider the words of the text, and see how easily they may be\nperverted, if with no more ado we take them, as said of ourselves, each\nindividually, and as containing to each of us a statement positive of\ntruth. \"Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.\"\nIf we believe that this is God's word respecting each of us, what\nviolence must we do to our memory of the past, and our consciousness of\nthe present, if we do try to persuade ourselves that so total a change\nhas taken place in each of us, that what we once were, we are no longer;\nthat what we are, we once were not; and this not in some few particular\npoints, but in the main character of our minds. Again, \"All things are\nof God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.\" If we apply\nthese words to each of us, what exceeding presumption would they breed!\nIf all things in us and about us are now of God, what room can there be\nfor sin? If God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, what room\ncan there be for fear or for danger? And thus, while we say we are\nquoting and believing the word of God, we do in fact turn it into a lie;\nwe make it assert a falsehood as to our past state, and a falsehood as\nto our future state; we make it say, that our old nature is passed away,\nwhen it is not; that we have got a new nature when we have not; that we\nare reconciled to God, and therefore in safety, when we are, in fact, in\nthe extremest danger.\n\nBut it is easy to see that we have no right to apply to ourselves words\nwritten by St. Paul eighteen hundred years ago, and applied by him to\nother persons. I go, then, farther; and I say, that if every member of\nthe church of Corinth, to which they were written, had applied them to\nhimself in the manner which I have shown above, the words would in many\ninstances have been perverted no less, and would have been made to state\nwhat was false, and not what was true. And the same may be said of many\nother passages of St. Paul's Epistles, which, having been similarly\nmisinterpreted, have furnished matter for endless controversies, and on\nwhich opposite theories of doctrine have been fondly raised, each of\nthem alike unchristian and untrue.\n\nThus our present position is this:--that oftentimes by taking the\nrepresentations of Scripture as true in fact, whether of ourselves or of\nothers, we come to conclusions at once false and mischievous; being, as\nthe case may be, either presumptuous, or fearful, or uncharitable, and\nclaiming for each of these faults the sanction of the word of God.\n\nA similar mistake in interpreting human compositions, has led to faults\nof another kind. Assuming as before, in interpreting St. Paul's words,\nthat the language of our Liturgy is meant to describe, as a matter of\nfact, the actual feelings and condition of those who use it, or for whom\nit is used; and seeing manifestly that these feelings and condition do\nnot agree with the words; we do not here, as with the Scripture, do\nviolence to our common sense and conscience, by insisting upon it that\nwe agree with the words, but we find fault with the words as being at\nvariance with the matter of fact. Some say that the language of the\nGeneral Confession is too strong a statement of sin; that the language\nof the Communion Service, of the Baptismal Service, and above all, of\nthe Burial Service, is too full of encouragement and of assurance; that\nmen are not all so bad as to require the one, 'nor so good as to deserve\nthe other; that in both cases it should be lowered, to agree with the\nactual condition of those who use it.\n\nNow it is worthy of notice, at any rate, that the self-same rule of\ninterpretation applied to the Scripture and the Liturgy is found to suit\nwith neither. We adhere positively to our rule: and thus, as we hold the\nwords of Scripture sacred, we force common sense and conscience to make\nthe facts agree with them; but not having the same respect for the words\nof the Liturgy, we complain of them as faulty and requiring alteration,\nbecause they do not agree with the facts.\n\nI will not enter into the question whether the Liturgy has done wisely\nor not in thus imitating the Scripture; but I do contend that, in point\nof fact, there is this resemblance between them. St. Paul's Epistles, in\nparticular, although it is true of other parts of the Scripture also,\ncontain, as does the Liturgy of our Church, a great many passages which,\nif taken either universally or even generally as containing a matter of\nfact, will lead us into certain error. Is it, therefore, so very certain\nthat we do wisely in so interpreting them?\n\nWith regard to our Liturgy I need not follow up the question now; but\nwith regard to St. Paul, it is certain that he, in many parts of his\nEpistles, chooses to represent that which ought to be as that which\nactually was: he chooses to regard those to whom he is writing as being\nin all respects true Christians, as being worthy of their privileges, as\nanswering to what God had done to them, as forming a church really\ninhabited by the Holy Spirit, and therefore being a true and living body\nof due proportions to Christ its Divine head. Nor does he trust\nexclusively to the common sense and conscience of those to whom he was\nwriting to interpret his language correctly. He might Lave thought\nindeed that if he wrote to them as redeemed, justified, sanctified, as\nhaving all things new, as being the children of God, and the heirs of\nGod, and the temples of the Holy Ghost, any individual who felt that he\nwas none of these things, that sin was still mighty within him, and that\nhe was sin's slave, would neither deny his own conscience, nor yet call\nSt. Paul a deceiver; but would read in the difference between St. Paul's\ndescription of him and the reality, the exact measure of his own sin,\nand need of repentance and watchfulness. But he does not rely on this\nonly: he notices sins as actually existing; he mingles the language of\nreproof and of anxiety, so as to make it quite clear that he did not\nmean his descriptions of their holiness and blessedness to apply to them\nall necessarily; he knew full well that they did not: but yet he knew\nalso that, considering what God had done for them, it was monstrous that\nthey should not be truly applicable.\n\nBut why then, you will say, did he use such language? why did he call\nmen forgiven, redeemed, saved, justified, sanctified?--he uses all these\nterms often as applicable generally to those to whom he was\nwriting;--why did he call them so, when in fact they were not so? He\ncalled them so for the same reason which, made prophecy foretell\nblessings upon Israel of old, and on the Christian church afterwards,\nwhich were fulfilled on neither:--in order to declare, and keep ever\nbefore us, what God has done and is willing to do for us: what he fain\nwould do for us, if we would but suffer him; what divine powers are\noffered to us, and we will not use them; what divine happiness is\ndesigned for us, and we will not enter into it. Let us ponder all the\nmagnificence of the scriptural language,--the words of the text for\nexample, not as describing what we are when we are full of sin; nor yet\nas mere exaggerated language, which must be brought down to the level of\nour present reality. Let us consider it as containing the words of\ntruth and soberness; not one jot or one tittle needs to be abated; it\nmust not be lowered to us, but we rather raised to it. It is a truth, it\nis the word of God, it is the seal of our assurance: it is that which\ngood men of old would have welcomed with the deepest joy; which, to good\nmen now is a source of comfort unspeakable. For it tells us that God has\ndone for us, is doing, will do, all that we need; it tells us that the\nprice of our redemption has been paid, the kingdom of heaven has been\nset open, the power to walk as God's children has been given: that so\nfar as God is concerned we are redeemed, we are saved, we are\nsanctified; it is but our own fault merely that we are not all of these\nactually and surely.\n\nThis is not a little matter to be persuaded of; if it be true, as I fear\nit is, that too many of us do not love God, is it not quite as true that\nwe cannot believe that God loves us? Have we any thing like a distinct\nsense of the words of St. John, \"We love God because he first loved us?\"\nWe believe in the love of our earthly friends; those who have so lately\nleft their homes have no manner of doubt that their parents are\ninterested in their welfare, though absent; that they will often think\nof them; and that, as far as it is possible at a distance from them,\nthey are watching over their good, and anxious to promote it. The very\nname home implies all this; it implies that it is a place where those\nlive who love us; and I do not question that the consciousness of\npossessing this love does, amidst all your faults and forgetfulnesses,\nrise not unfrequently within your minds, and restrain you from making\nyourselves altogether unworthy of it. Now, I say, that the words of the\ntext, and hundreds of similar passages, are our assurance, if we would\nbut believe them, that we have another home and another parent, by whom\nwe are loved constantly and earnestly, who has done far more for us\nthan our earthly parents can do. I grant that it is hard to believe this\nreally; so infinite is the distance between God and us, that we cannot\nfancy that he cares for us; he may make laws for a world, or for a\nsystem, but what can he think or feel for us? It is, indeed, a thought\nabsolutely overpowering to the mind; it may well seem incredible to us,\njudging either from our own littleness or our own forgetfulness; so hard\nas we find it to think enough of those to whom we are most nearly bound,\nhow can the Most High. God think of us? But if there be any one particle\nof truth in Christianity, we are warranted in saying that God does love\nus; strange as it may seem, He, whom neither word nor thought of created\nbeing can compass; He, who made us and ten thousand worlds, loves each\none of us individually; \"the very hairs of our heads are all numbered.\"\nHe so loved us, that he gave his only-begotten Son to die for us; and\nSt. Paul well asks, \"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him\nup for us all, will he not also with him freely give us all things?\"\n\nBelieve me, you could have no better charm to keep you safe through, the\ntemptations of the coming half year, than this most true persuasion that\nGod loves you. The oldest and the youngest of us may alike repeat to\nhimself the blessed words, \"God loves me;\" \"God loves me; God has\nredeemed me: God would dwell in my heart, that I might dwell in him: God\nhas placed me in his church, has made me a member of Christ his own Son,\nhas made me an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.\" I might multiply\nwords, but that one little sentence is, perhaps, more than all, \"God\nloves me.\" Oh that you would believe him when he assures you of it, for\nthen surely you would not fail to love him. But whether you believe it\nor not, still it is so: God loves every one of us; he loves each one of\nus as belonging to Christ his Son. He does love each, of us; let us not\ncast his love away from us, and refuse to love him in return; he does\nlove each of us now, but there may be a time to each of us,--there will\nbe, assuredly, if we will not believe that he loves us, when he will\nlove us no more for ever.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXVII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEZEKIEL xx. 49.\n\n_Then said I, Ah, Lord God I they say of me, Doth he not speak\nparables_?\n\n\nNothing is more disheartening, if we must believe it to be true, than\nthe language in which some persons talk of the difficulty of the\nScriptures, and the absolute certainty that different men will ever\ncontinue to understand them differently. It is not, we are told, with\nthe knowledge of Scripture as with that of outward nature: in the\nknowledge of nature, discoveries are from time to time made which set\nerror on the one side, and truth on the other, absolutely beyond\ndispute; there the ground when gained is clearly seen to be so; and as\nfresh sources of knowledge are continually opening to us, it is not\nbeyond hope that we may in time arrive infinitely near to the enjoyment\nof truth,--truth certain in itself, and acknowledged by all unanimously.\nBut with Scripture, it is said, the case is far otherwise; discoveries\nare not to be expected here, nor does a later generation derive from,\nits additional experience any greater insight into the things of God\nthan was enjoyed by the generations before it. And when we see that\nactually the complete Scriptures have been in the world not much less\nthan eighteen hundred years; that within that period no other book has\nbeen so much studied; and yet that differences of opinion as to the\nmatters spoken of in it have ever existed, and exist now as much as\never, what reasonable prospect is there, it is asked, of future harmony\nor of clearer demonstrations of divine truth; and will not the good on\nthese points ever continue to differ from the good, and the wise to\ndiffer from the wise?\n\nThis language, so discouraging as it is, may be heard from two very\nopposite parties, so that their agreement may appear to give it the more\nweight: it is used by men who are indifferent to religious truth, as an\nexcuse for their taking no pains to discover what the truth really is;\nit is echoed back quite as strongly by another set of persons who wish\nto magnify the uncertainties of the Scripture in order to recommend more\nplausibly the guidance of some supposed authoritative interpreter of it.\nBut yet it ought to be at any rate a painful work to any serious mind to\nbe obliged to dwell not only on the obscurities of God's word, but on\nits perpetual and invincible obscurities; and, though an interpreter may\nbe necessary if we know not the language of those with whom we are\nconversing, yet how much better would it be that we should ourselves\nknow it: nay, and if we are told that we cannot know it, that our best\nendeavours will be unable to master it, the suspicion inevitably arises\nin our minds, that our pretended interpreter may be ignorant of it also;\nthat he is not in truth better acquainted with it than we, but only more\npresumptuous or more dishonest.\n\nStill a statement may be painful, but at the same time true. There is\nundoubtedly something in such language as I have been alluding to, which\nappears to be confirmed by experience. There is no denying the fact,\nthat the Scriptures have been a long time in the world; that they have\nbeen very generally and carefully read; and yet that men do differ\nexceedingly as to religious truth, and these differences do not seem to\nbe tending towards agreement. It seems to me, there fore, desirable\nthat every student of the Scriptures should know, as well as may be,\nwhat the exact state of the question is; for if the subject of his\nstudies is really so hopelessly uncertain, it is scarcely possible that\nhis zeal in studying it should not be abated; nay, could we wisely\nencourage him to bestow his pains on a hopeless labour?\n\nNow, in the very outset, there is this consideration which many of us\nhere are well able to appreciate. We read many books written in dead\nlanguages, most of them more ancient than any part of the New Testament,\nsome of them older than several of the books of the Old. We know well\nenough that these ancient books are not without their difficulties; that\ntime, and thought, and knowledge are required to master them; but still\nwe do not doubt that, with the exception of particular-passages here and\nthere, the true meaning of these books may be discovered with undoubted\ncertainty. We know, too, that this certainty has increased; that\ninterpretations, which, were maintained some years ago, have been set\naside by our improved knowledge of the languages and condition of the\nancient world, quite as certainly as old errors in physical science have\nbeen laid to rest by later discoveries. Farther, our improved knowledge\nhas taught us to distinguish what may be known from what may be probably\nconcluded, and what is probable from what can merely be guessed at. When\nwe come to points of this last sort, to passages which cannot be\ninterpreted or understood, we leave them at once as a blank; but we\nenjoy no less, and understand with no less certainty, the greatest\nportions of the book which, contain them. And this experience, with\nregard to the works of heathen antiquity, makes it a startling\nproposition at the very outset, when we are told that with the works of\nChristian antiquity the case is otherwise.\n\nWe thus approach the statement as to the hopless difficulty of\nScripture, confirmed, as we are told it is, by the actual fact of the\ngreat disagreements among Christians, with a well-grounded mistrust of\nits soundness; we feel sure that there is something in it which is\nconfused or sophistical. And considering the fact which appears to\nconfirm it, I mean the actual differences between Christians and\nChristians, it soon appears by no means to bear out its supposed\nconclusion. For the differences between Christians and Christians by no\nmeans arise generally from the difficulty of understanding the Scripture\naright, but from disagreement as to some other point, quite independent\nof the interpretation of the Scriptures. For example, the great\nquestions at issue between us and the Roman Catholics turn upon two\npoints,--Whether there is not another authority, in matters of\nChristianity, distinct from and equal to the Scriptures,--and whether\ncertain interpretations of Scripture are not to be received as true, for\nthe sake of the authority of the interpreter. Now, suppose for a moment,\nthat the works of Plato or Aristotle were to us in the place of the\nScriptures; and that the question was, whether these works of theirs\ncould be understood with certainty; it would prove nothing against our\nbeing able to understand them, if, whilst we look to them alone, another\nman were to say, that, to his judgment, the works of other philosophers\nwere no less authoritative; or, if he were to insist upon it, that the\ninterpretations given by the scholiasts were always sure to be correct,\nbecause the scholiasts were the authorized interpreters of the text. No\ndoubt our philosophical opinions and our practice might differ widely\nfrom such a man's; but the difference would prove nothing as to the\nobscurity of Plato's or Aristotle's text, because another standard had\nbeen brought in, distinct from their works, and from the acknowledged\nprinciples of interpretation, and thus led unavoidably to a\ndifferent result.\n\nThe same also is the case as to the questions at issue between the\nChurch of England and many of the Dissenters. In these disputes it is\nnotorious that the practice and authority of the church are continually\nappealed to, or, it may be, considerations of another kind, as to the\ninherent reasonableness of a doctrine; all which are, again, a distinct\nmatter from the interpretation of Scripture. One of the greatest men of\nour time has declared, that, in the early part of his life, he did not\nbelieve in the divinity of our Lord; but he has stated expressly, that\nhe never for a moment persuaded himself that St. Paul or St. John did\nnot believe it; their language he thought was clear enough, upon the\npoint; but the notion appeared to him so unreasonable in itself, that he\ndisbelieved it in spite of their authority. It is manifest, that, in\nthis case, great as the difference was between this great man's early\nbelief and his later, yet it in no way arose from the obscurity of the\nScripture. The language of the Scripture was as clear to him at first as\nit was afterwards; but in his early life he disbelieved it, while, in\nhis latter life, he embraced it with all his heart and soul.\n\nIt must not be denied, however, that we are here arrived at one of the\ncauses which are likely, for a long time, to keep alive a false\ninterpretation of Scripture, and which do not affect our interpretation\nof heathen writings. For most men, in such a case as I have referred to,\nwhen they do not believe the language of the Scripture, but wish to\nalter it, whether by omission or addition, do not deal so fairly with it\nas that great man did to whom I have alluded. They have neither his\nknowledge nor his honesty; a false interpretation is more easily\ndisguised from them, owing to their ignorance, and they let their wishes\nmore readily warp their judgment. Thus, they will not say as he did,\n\"The Scripture clearly says so and so, but I cannot believe it;\" they\nrather say, \"This is very unreasonable and shocking, the Scripture\ncannot mean to say this;\" or, \"This is very pious and very ancient, the\nScripture cannot but sanction this.\" And certainly, if men will so deal\nwith it, there remains no certainty of interpretation then. But this is\nnot the way that we deal with other ancient writings; and its unfairness\nand foolishness, if ever attempted to be practised there, are so\npalpable as to be ridiculous. No doubt it is difficult to convince men\nagainst their will; nevertheless, there is a good hope, that, as sound\nprinciples of interpretation are more generally known, they will put to\nshame a flagrant departure from them; and that those who try to make the\nScripture say more or less than it has said, will be gradually driven to\nconfess that Scripture is not their real authority; that their own\nnotions in the one case, and the authority of the Church in the other\ncase, have been the real grounds of their belief, to which they strove\nto make the Scriptures conform.\n\nNothing that I have said is, in any degree, meant to countenance the\nopinions of those who talk of the Bible,--or rather, our translation of\nit,--being its own interpreter; meaning, that if you give a Bible to any\none who can read, he will be able to understand it rightly. Even in this\nextravagance, there is indeed something of a truth. If a man were so to\nread the Bible, much he would, unquestionably, be able to understand;\nenough, I well believe, if honestly and devoutly used, to give him, if\nliving in a desert island by himself, the knowledge of salvation. But\nwhen we talk of understanding the Bible, so as to be guided by it\namidst the infinite varieties of opinion and practice which beset us on\nevery side, it is the wildest folly to talk of it as being, in this\nsense, its own interpreter. Our comfort is, not that it can be\nunderstood without study, but with it; that the same pains which, enable\nus to understand heathen writings, whose meaning is of infinitely less\nvalue to us, will enable us, with God's blessing, to understand the\nScriptures also. Neither do I mean, that mere intellectual study would\nmake them clear to the careless or the undevout; but, supposing us to\nseek honestly to know God's will, and to pray devoutly for his help to\nguide us to it, then our study is not vain nor uncertain; the mind of\nthe Scriptures may be discovered; we may distinguish plainly between\nwhat is clear, and what is not clear; and what is not clear will be\nfound far less in amount, and infinitely less in importance, than what\nis clear. I do not say, that a true understanding of the Scriptures will\nsettle at once all religious differences;--manifestly, it cannot; for,\nalthough I may understand them well, yet if a man maintains an opinion,\nor a practice, upon some other authority than theirs, we cannot agree\ntogether. Nevertheless, we may be allowed to hope and believe, that in\ntime, if men could be hindered from misinterpreting the Scripture in\nbehalf of their own opinions, their opinions themselves would find fewer\nsupporters; for, as Christianity must come, after all, from our blessed\nLord and his apostles, men will shrink from saying that that is no truth\nof Christianity which Christ and his apostles have clearly taught, or\nthat that is a truth of Christianity, however ancient, and by whatever\nlong line of venerable names supported, which they have as clearly, in\nour sole authentic records of them, not taught. It is not, therefore,\nwithout great and reasonable hope, that we may devote ourselves to the\nstudy of the Scriptures; and those habits of study which are cultivated\nhere, and in other places of the same kind, are the best ordinary means\nof arriving at the truth. We are constantly engaged in extracting the\nmeaning of those who have written in times past, and in a dead language.\nWe do this according to certain rules, acknowledged as universally as\nthe laws of physical science: these rules are developed gradually,--from\nthe simple grammar which forms our earliest lessons, to the rules of\nhigher criticism, still no less acknowledged, which are understood by\nthose of a more advanced age. And we do this for heathen writings; but\nthe process is exactly the same--and we continually apply it, also, for\nthat very purpose--with what is required to interpret the Word of God.\nAfter all is done, we shall still, no doubt, find that the Scripture has\nits parables, its passages which cannot now be understood; but we shall\nfind, also, that by much the larger portion of it may be clearly and\ncertainly known; enough to be, in all points which really concern our\nfaith and practice, a lantern to our feet, and an enlightener to\nour souls.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXVIII.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nISAIAH v.1.\n\n_Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his\nvineyard_.\n\n\nWhatever difficulties we may find in understanding and applying many\nparts of the prophetical Scriptures, yet every thinking person could\nfollow readily enough, I suppose, the chapter from which these words are\ntaken, as it was read in the course of this morning's service; and he\nwould feel, while understanding it as said, immediately and in the first\ninstance, of the Jewish Church or nation, seven centuries and a half\nbefore the birth of our Lord, that it was no less applicable to this\nChristian church and nation at the present period. We cannot, indeed,\nexpect to find a minute agreement in particular points between ourselves\nand the Jews of old; the difference of times and circumstances renders\nthis impossible; both they and we stand, on the one hand, in so nearly\nthe same relation to God, and we both so share, on the other hand, in\nthe same sinful human nature, that the complaints, and remonstrances of\nthe prophets of old may often, be repeated, even in the very same words,\nby the Christian preacher now.\n\nIf this be so, then the language of various parts of the service of the\nChurch in this season of Advent ought to excite in us no small\napprehension; for whilst the lessons from the Old Testament describe\nthe evil state of the Jewish people in the eighth century before Christ,\nand threaten it with destruction, so the gospels for this day, and for\nlast Sunday, speak of the evil state of the same people when our Lord\nwas upon earth; and the chapter from which the gospel of this day is\ntaken, contains, as we know, a full prophecy of the destruction that\nwas, for the second time, going to overwhelm the earthly Jerusalem. We\ncannot but fear, therefore, that if our state now be like that of God's\npeople of old, eight centuries before our Lord's coming, and again like\ntheir state at his coming: and if, after the first period, their city\nand temple were burnt, and they were carried captive to Babylon,--and\nagain, after the second period, the city and temple were burnt again,\nand the people were dispersed, even to this day,--that, as the\npunishment has twice surely followed the sin, so it will not fail to\nfind it out in this third case also.\n\nAnd be it remembered that the people, or church of God, as such, can\nreceive their punishment only in this world: for, taken as a body, it is\nan institution for this world only. We each of us, no doubt, shall have\nour own separate individual judgment after death; and, in the mean time,\nour fortunes and our character often bear no just correspondence with\neach other. But nations and churches have their judgments here: and\nalthough God's long-suffering so suspends it for many generations that\nit may seem as if it would never fall, yet does it come surely at the\nlast; and almost always we can ourselves trace the connexion between the\nsin and the punishment, and can see that the one was clearly the\nconsequence of the other. And thus our church and nation may feel their\nnational judgments in this world quite independently of the several\npersonal judgments which will be passed upon us each hereafter\nindividually, when we stand before Christ's judgment seat.\n\nI have thus ventured to bring the condition of the church as a body\nbefore our minds, although well knowing how much more we are concerned\nwith the state of our own souls individually. Yet still the more general\nview is not without great use; and indeed it bears directly upon our\nindividual state: our actions and our feelings having often a close\nconnexion with, general church matters; and these actions and feelings\nbeing necessarily good or bad, according to the soundness of our\njudgment on the matter which occasions them. Besides which, it seems to\nme that general views, rather than what relates to particular faults,\nmay be with most propriety dwelt on by those who have no direct\nconnexion with the congregation which they are addressing.\n\nIn the first place, then, whenever we think of the state and prospects\nof Christ's church, whether for good or for evil, it is most desirable\nthat we should rightly understand our own relations to it. \"The vineyard\nof the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel;\" or, in the language of the\nNew Testament, \"Christ is the vine, and we are the branches.\" Men\ncontinually seem to forget that they are members of the church;\ncitizens, to use St. Paul's expression, of Christ's kingdom, as much as\never they are citizens of their earthly country. But they speak of the\nchurch as they might speak of any useful institution or society in their\nneighbourhood, whose object they approved of, and which they were glad\nto encourage, but without becoming members of it, or identifying\nthemselves with its success or failure. For example, they speak of the\nchurch as they might speak of the universities, which indeed are\ninstitutions of great importance to the whole country, but yet they are\nmanifestly distinct from the mass of the community: they have their own\nmembers, their own laws, and their own government, with which, people in\ngeneral have nothing to do. And so many persons speak and feel of the\nchurch, regarding it evidently as consisting only of the clergy: our\ncommon language, no doubt, helping this confusion, because we often\nspeak of a man's going into the church when he enters into holy orders,\njust as if ordination were the admission into the church, and not\nbaptism. Now, if the clergy did indeed constitute the church, then it\nwould very much resemble the condition of the universities: for it would\nthen be indeed a society very important to the welfare of the whole\ncountry, but yet one that was completely distinct, and which had its\nmembers, laws, and government quite apart: for men in general do not\nbelong to the clergy, nor are they concerned directly in such canons as\nrelate to the peculiar business of the clergy, nor does the bishop's\nsuperintendence, as commonly exercised, extend at all to them. But God\ndesigned for his church far more than that it should contain one order\nof men only, or that it should comprise commonly but one single\nindividual in a parish, preaching to and teaching the rest of the\ninhabitants, like a missionary amongst a population of heathens. Look at\nSt. Paul's account of the church of Corinth, in the 12th chapter of his\n1st epistle to the Corinthians, and see if any two things can be more\ndifferent than his notion of a church, and that which many people seem\nto entertain amongst us. Compare the living body there described, made\nup of so many various members, each having its separate office, yet each\nuseful to and needed by the others and by the body,--and our notion of a\nparish committed to the charge of a single individual: as if all the\nmanifold gifts which the church requires could by possibility be\ncomprised in the person of any one Christian; as if the whole burden\nwere to rest upon his shoulders, and the other inhabitants might regard\nthe welfare of the church as his concern only, and not theirs.\n\nBut not only is the church too often confined in men's notions to the\nsingle class or profession of the clergy, but it has been narrowed still\nfarther by the practical extinction of one of the orders of the clergy\nitself. Where the laity have come to regard their own share in the\nconcerns of the church as next to nothing, the order of deacons,\nforming, as it were, a link between the clergy and the laity, becomes\nproportionably of still greater importance. The business of the deacons,\nas we well know, was in an especial manner to look after the relief of\nthe poor; and by combining this charge with the power of baptizing, of\nreading the Scriptures, and of preaching also, when authorized by the\nbishop, they exhibited the peculiar character of Christianity, that of\nsanctifying the business of this world by doing everything in the name\nof the Lord Jesus. No church, so far as we know, certainly no church in\nany town, existed without its deacons: they were as essential to its\ncompleteness as its bishop and its presbyters.\n\nTake any one of our large towns now, and what do we find? A bishop, not\nof that single town only, but of fifty others besides: one presbyter in\neach, church, and no deacons! Practically, and according to its proper\ncharacter, the order of deacons is extinct; and those who now bear the\nname are most commonly found exercising the functions of presbyters;\nthat is, instead of acting as the assistants of a presbyter, they are\noften the sole ministers of their respective parishes; they alone\nbaptize; alone offer up the prayers of the church, alone preach the\nword: nothing marks their original character, except their inability to\nadminister the communion; and thus, by a strange anomaly, the church in\nsuch parishes is actually left without any power of celebrating its\nhighest act, that of commemorating the death, of Christ in the Lord's\nsupper; and if it were not for another great evil, the unfrequent\ncelebration of the Communion, the system could not go on: because the\ndeacon would be so often obliged to apply to other ministers to perform\nthat duty for him, that the inconvenience, as well as the unfitness, of\nthe actual practice, would be manifest to every one.\n\nAgain, what has become of church discipline? That it has perished, we\nall well know: but its loss is the consequence of that fatal error which\nmakes the clergy alone constitute the church. It is quite certain that\nmen will not allow the members of a single profession to exercise the\nauthority of society; to create and define offences; to determine their\npunishment, and to be the judges of each particular offender. As long as\nthe clergy are supposed to constitute the whole church, church\ndiscipline would be nothing but priestly tyranny. And yet the absence of\ndiscipline is a most grievous evil; and there is no doubt that, although\nit must be vain when opposed to public opinion, yet, when it is the\nexpression of that opinion, there is nothing which it cannot achieve.\nBut public opinion cannot enforce church discipline now, because that\ndiscipline would not be now the expression of the voice of the church,\nbut simply of a small part of the church, of the clergy only.\n\nSo deeply has this fatal error of regarding the clergy as the church\nextended itself, that at this moment a man's having been baptized is no\nsecurity for his being so much as a believer in the truth of\nChristianity: no matter that he was made in his baptism a member of\nChrist, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven; no\nmatter that at a more advanced period of his life he was confirmed, and\nentered into the church by his own act and deed; still the church\nbelongs to the clergy; they may hold such and such, language, and teach\nsuch and such doctrine; it would be very improper in them to do\notherwise; and he has a great respect for the church, and would\nstrenuously resist all its enemies, but truly, as for his own belief and\nhis own conduct, these he will guide according to other principles, as\nimperative upon him as the rules of the church upon churchmen. Well\nindeed, do such men bear witness that they are not of the church,\nindeed; that their portion is not with God's people; that Christ is not\ntheir Saviour, nor the Holy Spirit their Comforter and Guide: but what\nblasphemy is it to call themselves friends of the church! as if Christ's\nchurch could have any friends except God and his holy angels: the church\nhas its living and redeemed members; it may have those who are craving\nto be admitted within its shelter, being convinced that God is in it of\na truth; but beyond these he who is not with it is against it; he who is\nnot Christ's servant, serves his enemy.\n\nFarther, it is this same deadly error which is the root and substance of\npopery. There is no one abuse of the Romish system which may not be\ntraced to the original and very early error of drawing a wide\ndistinction between the clergy and the laity; of investing the former in\nsuch a peculiar degree with the attributes of the church that at last\nthey retained them almost exclusively. In other words, the great evil of\npopery is, that it has destroyed the Christian church, and has\nsubstituted a priesthood in its room. This is the fault of the Greek\nchurch, almost as much as of the Roman; and the peculiar tenet of the\nRomish church, that the supreme government is vested in one single\nmember of this priesthood, the Bishop of Rome, is in some respects\nrather an improvement of the system, than an aggravation of it. For\neven an absolute monarchy is a less evil than an absolute aristocracy;\nand an infallible Pope is no greater corruption of Christ's truth, than\nan infallible general council. The real evils of the system are of a far\nolder date than the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and exist in places\nwhere that supremacy is resolutely denied. And if we attend to them\ncarefully, we shall see that these evils have especially affected the\nChristian church as distinguished from the Christian religion. It is\nworth our while to attend to this distinction; for the Christian\nreligion and the Christian church together, and neither without the\nother, form the perfect idea of Christianity. NOW, by the Christian\nreligion, I mean the revelation of what God has done or will do for us\nin Christ; the great doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, the\natonement, the resurrection, the presence of the Holy Spirit amongst us,\nand our own resurrection hereafter, to an existence of eternal happiness\nor misery. And these truths, if revealed to any single person living in\nan uninhabited island, might be abundantly sufficient for his salvation;\nif God disposed his heart to receive them, and to believe them\nearnestly, they would be the means of his overcoming his corrupt nature,\nand of passing from death unto life. But because men do not generally\nlive alone, but with one another; and because they cannot but greatly\nhinder, or help each other by their mutual influence, therefore the\nChristian church was instituted for the purpose of spreading and\nfurthering the growth of the Christian religion in men's hearts; and its\nvarious ministeries, its sacraments, its services and festivals, and its\ndiscipline were all designed with that object. And it is all these which\npopery has perverted; popery, whether in the Roman church or in the\nGreek church, or even in the Protestant church, for it has existed more\nor less in all. But even in the Roman church, where the perversion has\nbeen most complete, it has comparatively affected but little the truths\nof the Christian religion; all the great doctrines, which I mentioned,\nare held as by ourselves; the three creeds, the Apostles' creed, the\nNicene, and the Athanasian, are used by the Roman church no less than by\nour own. Thus it often happens that we can read with great edification\nthe devotional works of Roman Catholic writers, because in such works\nthe individual stands apart from the Christian church, and is concerned\nonly with the Christian religion: they show how one single soul, having\nlearnt the tidings of redemption with faith, and thankfulness, improves\nthem to its own salvation. But the moment that he goes out of his\ncloset, and begins to speak and act amongst other men, then the\ncorruption of popery shows itself. The Christian church was designed to\nhelp each individual towards a more perfect knowledge and love of God,\nby the counsel and example of his brethren, and by the practices which,\nhe was to observe in their society. But the corrupt church exercises its\ninfluence for evil; it omits all the benefits to be derived from a\nliving society, and puts forward, in their place, the observance of\nrites and ceremonies; knowledge and love are no longer looked to as the\nperfections of a Christian, but ignorance and blind obedience; not the\nmortifying all our evil passions universally, but the keeping them\nchained up, as it were under priestly control, to be let loose at the\npriest's bidding, against those whom he calls the church's enemies; that\nglorious church which he has destroyed and converted it into an idol\ntemple, in that he, as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself\nthat he is God.\n\nTo resist this great and monstrous evil, we must not exclaim against it\nunder one of its forms only, even although that form exhibit it,\nindeed, in its most complete deformity; but we must strive against it\nunder all its forms, remembering that its essence consists in putting\nthe clergy in the place of the church; and taking from the great mass of\nthe church their proper share in its government, in its offices, and\ntherefore in its benefits, and in the sense of its solemn\nresponsibilities. We speak often of church extension, meaning by this\nterm the building new places of public worship, and the appointing\nadditional ministers to preach the word and administer the sacraments.\nAnd no doubt such church extension is a good and blessed work, for it\nbrings the knowledge of the truths of Christ's religion, and the benefit\nof his ordinances, the sacraments, within the reach of many who might\notherwise have been without them. But it were a yet truer and more\nblessed church extension which should add to the building and the single\nminister, the real living church itself, with all its manifold offices\nand ministries, with its pure discipline, with its holy and loving sense\nof brotherhood. Without this, Christ will still, indeed, as heretofore,\nlay his hands on some few sick folk and heal them; his grace will convey\nthe truths of his gospel to individual souls, and they will believe and\nbe saved. But the fulfilment of prophecy; the triumph of Christ's\nkingdom; the changing an evil world into a world redeemed; this can only\nbe done by a revival of the Christian church in its power, the living\ntemple of the Holy Ghost, which, visibly to all mankind, in the wisdom\nand holiness of its members, showed that God was in the midst of it. It\nmay be that this is a fond hope, which we may not expect to see\nrealized; but looking on the one hand to the strong and triumphant\nlanguage of prophecy, I know not how any hope of the advancement of\nChrist's kingdom can be more bold than God's word will warrant: and on\nthe other, tracing the past history of the church, its gradual\ncorruption may be deduced distinctly from one early and deadly mischief,\nwhich has destroyed its efficacy; so that, if this mischief can be\nremoved, and the church become such as Christ designed it to be, it does\nnot seem presumptuous to hope that his appointed instrument, working\naccording to his will, should be enabled to obtain the full blessings of\nhis promise.\n\nAnd now, in conclusion, if we ask, what should follow from all that has\nbeen said? what it should lead us all, if it be true, to feel or to\ndo?--the answer is, that considerations of this sort are not such as\nlead at once to some distinct change in our conduct; to the laying aside\nsome favourite sin, or the practising some long neglected duty. And yet\nthe thoughts which I have endeavoured to suggest to your minds may, if\ndwelt upon, lead, in the end, to a very considerable alteration, both in\nour feelings and in our practice. First of all, it is not a little\nmatter to be convinced practically, that it is baptism, and not\nordination, which makes us members of the church; that it is by sharing\nin the communion of Christ's body and blood, not by being admitted into\nthe ministry, that the privileges and graces of Christ's church are\nconferred upon us. And most wisely, and most truly, does our Church\nseparate ordination from the two Christian sacraments, as an institution\nfar less solemn, and conferring graces far less important: for the\ndifference between a Christian and a Christian minister is but one of\noffice, not of moral or spiritual advancement, not of greater or less\nnearness to God. One is our master, even Christ; and all we are\nbrethren. Words which certainly do not imply that all members of the\nchurch are to have the same office, or that all offices are of equal\nimportance and dignity; but which do imply, most certainly, that any\nattempt to convert the ministry into a priesthoood, that is, to\nrepresent them as standing, in any matter, as mediators between Christ\nand his people, or as being essentially the channel through which his\ngrace must pass to his church, is directly in opposition to him; and is\nno better than idolatry. It was by baptism that we have all been\nengrafted into Christ's body; it is by the communion of his body and\nblood that we continue to abide in him; it is in his whole body, in his\nchurch, and not in its ministers, as distinct from his church, that his\nHoly Spirit abides.\n\nThus feeling that we each are members of the church, that it is our\nhighest country, to which we are bound with a far deeper love than to\nour earthly country, is not its welfare our welfare; its triumph our\ntriumph; its failures our shame? We shall see, then, that church\nquestions are not such merely, or principally, as concern the payment of\nthe clergy, or their discipline, but all questions in which God's glory\nand man's sins or duties are concerned; all questions in the decision of\nwhich, there is a moral good and evil; a grieving of Christ's Spirit, or\na conformity to him. And in such questions as concern the church, in the\nmore narrow and common sense of the word, seeing that we are all members\nof the church, we should not neglect them, as the concern of others, but\ntake an interest in them, and act in them, so far as we have\nopportunity, as in a matter which most nearly concerns ourselves. We\nfeel that we have an interest in our country's affairs, although we are\nnot members of the government or of the legislature; we have our part to\nperform, without at all overstepping the modesty of private life: and it\nis the constant influence of public opinion, and the active interest\ntaken by the country at large in its own concerns, which, in spite of\noccasional delusion or violence, is mainly instrumental in preserving to\nus the combined vigour and order of our political constitution. And so,\nif we took an equal interest in the affairs of our divine commonwealth,\nour Christian church, and endeavoured as eagerly to promote every thing\nwhich tended to its welfare, and to put down and prevent every thing\nwhich might work it mischief, then the efforts of the clergy to advance\nChrist's kingdom would be incalculably aided, while there would then be\nno danger of our investing them with the duties and responsibilities\nwhich belong properly to the whole church; they could not then have\ndominion over our faith, nor by possibility become lords over God's\nheritage, but would be truly ensamples to the flock, the helpers of our\njoy, the glory of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XXXIX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCOLOSSIANS iii. 17.\n\n_Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,\ngiving thanks to God and the Father by Him_.\n\n\nThis, like the other general rules of the gospel, is familiar enough to\nus all in its own words; but we are very apt to forbear making the\napplication of it. In fact, he who were to apply it perfectly would be a\nperfect Christian: for a life of which every word and deed were said and\ndone in the name of the Lord Jesus, would be a life indeed worthy of the\nchildren of God, and such as they lead in heaven; it would leave no room\nfor sin to enter. The art of our enemy has been therefore to make us\nleave this command of the apostle's in its general sense, and avoid\nexploring, so to speak, all the wisdom contained within it. Certain\nactions of our lives, our religious services, the more solemn\ntransactions in which we are engaged, we are willing to do in Christ's\nname; but that multitude of common words and ordinary actions by which\nmore than sixty-nine out of our seventy years are filled, we take away\nfrom our Lord's dominion, under the foolish, and hypocritical pretence\nthat they are too trifling and too familiar to be mixed up with the\nthought of things so solemn.\n\nThis is one fault, and by far the most common. We make Christ's service\nthe business only of a very small portion of our lives; we hallow only\na very small part of our words and actions by doing them in his name.\nUnlike our Lord's own parable, where he compares Christianity to leaven\nhidden in the three measures of meal till the whole was leavened, the\npractice rather has been to keep the leaven confined to one little\ncorner of the mass of meal; to take care that it should not spread so as\nto leaven the whole mass; to keep our hearts still in the state of the\nworld when Christ visited it--\"the light shineth in darkness, and the\ndarkness comprehended it not;\" that is, it did not take the light into\nitself so as to be wholly enlightened: the light shone, and there was a\nbright space immediately around it; but beyond there was a blackness of\ndarkness into which it vainly strove to penetrate.\n\nOn the other hand there has been, though, more rarely, a fault of the\nopposite sort. Men have said that they were in all their actions of\nordinary life doing Christ's will, that they endeavoured always to be\npromoting some good object; and that the peculiar services of religion,\nas they are called, were useless, inasmuch as in spirit they are\nworshipping God always. This is a great error; because, as a matter of\nfact, it is false. We may safely say that no man ever did keep his heart\nright with God in his ordinary life, that no one ever became one with\nChrist, and Christ with him, without seeking Christ where he reveals\nhimself, it may not be more really, but to our weakness far more\nsensibly, than in the common business of daily life. We may be happy if\nwe can find Christ there, after we have long sought him and found him in\nthe way of his own ordinances, in prayer, and in his holy communion.\nEven Christ himself, when on earth, though his whole day was undeniably\nspent in doing the will of his heavenly father,--although to him\ndoubtless God was ever present in the commonest acts no less than in the\nmost solemn,--yet even he, after a day spent in all good works, desired\na yet more direct intercourse with God, and was accustomed to spend a\nlarge portion of the night in retirement and prayer.\n\nWithout this, indeed, we shall most certainly not say and do all in the\nname of the Lord Jesus; much more shall we be in danger of forgetting\nhim altogether. But supposing that we are not neglectful of our\nreligious duties, in the common sense of the term, that we do pray and\nread the Scriptures, and partake of Christ's communion, yet it will\noften happen that we do not connect our prayers, nor our reading, nor\nour communion, with many of the common portions of our lives; that there\nare certain things in which we take great interest, which,\nnotwithstanding, we leave, as it were, wholly without the range of the\nlight of Christ's Spirit. There is a story told that, in times and\ncountries where there prevailed the deepest ignorance, some who came to\nbe baptized into the faith of Christ, converted from their heathen\nstate, not in reality but only in name, were accustomed to leave their\nright arm unbaptized, with the notion that this arm, not being pledged\nto Christ's service, might wreak upon their enemies those works of\nhatred and revenge which in baptism they had promised to renounce. It is\ntoo much to say that something like this unbaptized right arm is still\nto be met with amongst us--that men too often leave some of their very\nmost important concerns, what they call by way of eminence their\nbusiness--their management of their own money affairs, and their conduct\nin public matters--wholly out of the control of Christ's law?\n\nNow at this very time public matters are engaging the thoughts of a\ngreat many persons all over the kingdom: and are not only engaging their\nthoughts, but are also become a practical matter, in which they are\nacting with great earnestness. Is it nothing that there should be so\nmuch, interest felt, so much pains taken, and yet that neither should be\ndone in the name of the Lord Jesus, nor to the glory of God? It cannot\nbe unsuited to the present season to dwell a little on this subject,\nwhich has nothing whatever to do with men's differences of opinion, but\nrelates only to their acting, whatever be their political opinions, on\nChristian principles, and in a Christian spirit.\n\nFirst, consider what we pray for in the prayer which we have been using\nevery week for the high court of parliament: we pray to God, that \"all\nthings may be so ordered and settled by the endeavours of parliament,\nupon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth,\nand justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all\ngenerations.\" These great blessings we beg of God to secure to us and to\nour children through the endeavours of parliament; if, therefore, we are\nany ways concerned in fixing who the persons are to be who are to\ncompose this parliament, it is plain that there is put into our bands a\nhigh privilege, if you will; but along with it, as with all other\nprivileges, a most solemn responsibility.\n\nBut, if it be a solemn responsibility in the sight of God and of Christ,\nsurely the act of voting, which many think so lightly of, and which many\nmore consider a thing wholly political and worldly, becomes, indeed, a\nvery important Christian duty, not to be discharged hastily or\nselfishly, in blind prejudice or passion, from self-interest, or in mere\ncareless good nature and respect of persons; but deliberately,\nseriously, calmly, and, so far as we can judge our deceitful hearts,\npurely; not without prayer to Him who giveth wisdom liberally to those\nthat ask it, that he will be pleased to guide them aright, to his own\nglory, and to the good of his people.\n\nDo I say that if we were to approach this duty in this spirit, and with\nsuch prayers, we should all agree in the same opinion, and all think the\nsame of the same men? No, by no means; we might still greatly differ;\nbut we should, at least, have reason to respect one another, and to be\nin charity with one another; and if we all earnestly desired and prayed\nto be directed to God's glory, and the public good, God, I doubt not,\nwould give us all those ends which we so purely desired, although in our\nestimate of the earthly means and instruments by which they were to be\ngained, we had honestly differed from one another.\n\nNow, supposing that we had this conviction, that what we were going to\ndo concerned the glory of God and the good of his people, and that we\napproached it therefore seriously as a Christian duty, yet it may be\nwell that many men might feel themselves deficient in knowledge; they\nmight not understand the great questions at issue; they might honestly\ndoubt how they could best fulfil the trust committed to them. I know\nthat the most ignorant man will feel no such hesitation if he is going\nto give his vote from fancy, or from prejudice, or from interest; these\nare motives which determine our conduct quickly and decisively. But if\nwe regard our vote as a talent for which we must answer before God that\nwe may well be embarrassed by a consciousness of ignorance; we may well\nbe anxious to get some guidance from others, if we cannot find it in\nourselves. Here, then, is the place for authority,--for relying, that\nis, on the judgment of others, when we feel that we cannot judge for\nourselves. But is their no room for the exercise of much good sense and\nfairness in ourselves as to the choice of the person by whose judgment\nwe mean to be guided? Are we so little accustomed to estimate our\nneighbours' characters rightly, as to be unable to determine whom we may\nconsult with advantage? Surely if their be any one whom we have proved,\nin the affairs of common life, to be at once honest and sensible, to\nsuch an one we should apply when we are at a loss as to public matters.\nIf there is such an one amongst our own relations or personal friends,\nwe should go to him in preference: if not, we can surely find one such\namongst our neighbours: and here the authority of such of our neighbours\nas have a direct connexion with us, if we have had reason to respect\ntheir judgment and their principles, may be properly preferred to that\nof indifferent persons; the authority of a master, or an employer, or of\nour minister, or of our landlord, may and ought, under such\ncircumstances, to have a great and decisive influence over us.\n\nOn the other hand, supposing again that we have this strong sense of the\ngreat responsibility in the sight of God of every man who has the\nprivilege of a vote, we shall be exceedingly careful not to tempt him to\nsin by fulfilling this duty ill. Nothing can be more natural or more\nproper than that those who have strong impressions themselves as to the\nline to be followed in public matters, should be desirous of persuading\nothers to think as they do; every man who loves truth and righteousness\nmust wish that what he himself earnestly believes to be true and\nrighteous, should be loved by others also; but the highest truth, if\nprofessed by one who believes it not in his heart, is to him a lie, and\nhe sins greatly by professing it. Let us try as much as we will to\nconvince our neighbours; but let us beware of influencing their conduct,\nwhen we fail in influencing their convictions: he who bribes or\nfrightens his neighbour into doing an act which no good man would do for\nreward or from fear, is tempting his neighbour to sin; he is assisting\nto lower and to harden his conscience,--to make him act for the favour\nor from the fear of man, instead of for the favour or from the fear of\nGod; and if this be a sin in him, it is a double sin in us to tempt him\nto it. Nor let us deceive ourselves by talking of the greatness of the\nstake at issue; that God's glory and the public good are involved in the\nresult of the contest, and that therefore we must do all in our power to\nwin it. Let us by all means do all that we can do without sin; but let\nus not dare to do evil that good may come, for that is the part of\nunbelief; it becomes those who will not trust God with the government of\nthe world, but would fain guide its course themselves. Here, indeed, our\nLord's command does apply to us, that we be not anxious; \"Which of you\nby taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?\" How little can we\nsee of the course of Providence! how little can we be sure that what we\njudged for the best in public affairs may not lead to mischief! But\nthese things are in God's hand; our business is to keep ourselves and\nour neighbours from sin, and not to do or encourage in others any thing\nthat is evil, however great the advantages which we may fancy likely to\nflow from that evil to the cause even of the highest good.\n\nThere is no immediate prospect, indeed, that we in this particular\ncongregation shall be called upon to practise the duty of which I have\nbeen now speaking; and, indeed, it is for that very reason that I could\ndwell on the subject more freely. But what is going on all around us,\nwhat we hear of, read of, and talk of so much as we are many of us\nlikely to do in the next week or two about political matters, _that_ we\nshould be accustomed to look upon as Christians: we should by that\nstandard try our common views and language about it, and, if it may be,\ncorrect them: that so hereafter, if we be called upon to act, we may\nact, according to the Apostle's teaching, in the name of our Lord Jesus.\nAnd I am quite sure if we do so think and so act, although our\ndifferences of opinion might remain just the same, yet the change in\nourselves, and I verily believe in the blessings which God would give\nus, would be more than we can well believe; and a general election,\ninstead of calling forth, as it now does, a host of unchristian passions\nand practices, would be rather an exercise of Christian judgment, and\nforbearance, and faith, and charity; promoting, whatever was the mere\npolitical result, the glory of God, advancing Christ's kingdom, and the\ngood of this, as it would be then truly called, Christian nation.\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE A. P. 5.\n\n\"_But our path is not backwards but onwards_\"--This thought is expressed\nvery beautifully in lines as wise and true as they are poetical:\n\n     \"Grieve not for these: nor dare lament\n       That thus from childhood's thoughts we roam:\n     Not backward are our glances bent,\n       But forward to our Father's home.\n     Eternal growth has no such fears,\n       But freshening still with seasons past,\n     The old man clogs its earlier years,\n       And simple childhood comes the last.\"\n\n_Burbridge's Poems_, p. 309.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE B. P. 102.\n\n\"_Some may know the story of that German nobleman_,\" &c.--The Baron von\nCanitz. He lived in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and was\nengaged in the service of the electors of Brandenburg, both of the great\nelector and his successor. He was the author of several hymns, one of\nwhich is of remarkable beauty, as may be seen in the following\ntranslation, for the greatest part of which I am indebted to the\nkindness of a friend: but the language of the original, in several\nplaces, cannot be adequately translated in English.\n\n     Come, my soul, thou must be waking--\n     Now is breaking\n       O'er the earth another day.\n     Come to Him who made this splendour\n     See thou render\n       All thy feeble powers can pay.\n\n     From the stars thy course be learning:\n     Dimly burning\n       'Neath the sun their light grows pale:\n     So let all that sense delighted\n     While benighted\n       From God's presence fade and fail.\n\n     Lo! how all of breath partaking,\n     Gladly waking,\n       Hail the sun's enlivening light!\n     Plants, whose life mere sap doth nourish,\n     Rise and flourish,\n       When he breaks the shades of night.\n\n     Thou too hail the light returning,--\n     Ready burning\n       Be the incense of thy powers;--\n     For the night is safely ended:\n     God hath tended\n       With His care thy helpless hours.\n\n     Pray that He may prosper ever\n     Each endeavour\n       When thine aim is good and true;\n     But that He may ever thwart thee,\n     And convert thee,\n       When thou evil wouldst pursue.\n\n     Think that He thy ways beholdeth--\n     He unfoldeth\n       Every fault that lurks within;\n     Every stain of shame gloss'd over\n     Can discover,\n       And discern each deed of sin.\n\n     Fetter'd to the fleeting hours,\n     All our powers,\n       Vain and brief, are borne away;\n     Time, my soul, thy ship is steering,\n     Onward veering,\n       To the gulph of death a prey.\n\n     May'st thou then on life's last morrow,\n     Free from sorrow,\n       Pass away in slumber sweet;\n     And released from death's dark sadness,\n     Rise in gladness,\n       That far brighter Sun to greet.\n\n     Only God's free gifts abuse not,\n     His light refuse not,\n       But still His Spirit's voice obey;\n     Soon shall joy thy brow be wreathing,\n     Splendour breathing\n       Fairer than the fairest day.\n\n     If aught of care this morn oppress thee,\n     To Him address thee,\n       Who, like the sun, is good to all:\n     He gilds the mountain tops, the while\n     His gracious smile\n       Will on the humblest valley fall.\n\n     Round the gifts His bounty show'rs,\n     Walls and tow'rs\n       Girt with flames thy God shall rear:\n     Angel legions to defend thee\n     Shall attend thee,\n       Hosts whom Satan's self shall fear.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE C. P. 122.\n\n\"_But, once admit a single exception, and the infallible virtue of the\nrule ceases_.\"--Thus the famous Canon of Vincentius Lirinensis is like\ntradition itself, always either superfluous or insufficient. Taken\nliterally, it is true and worthless;--because what _all_ have asserted,\n_always_, and in _all places_, supposing of course that the means of\njudging were in their power, may be assumed to be some indisputable\naxiom, such as never will be disputed any more than it has been disputed\nhitherto. But take it with any allowance, and then it is of no use in\nsettling a question: for what _most_ men have asserted, _most commonly_,\nand in _most places_, has a certain _\u00e0 priori_ probability, it is true,\nbut by no means such as may not be outweighed by probabilities on the\nother side; for the extreme improbability consists not in the prevalence\nof error amongst millions, or for centuries, or over whole\ncontinents,--but in its being absolutely universal, so universal, that\ntruth could not find a single witness at any time or in any country. But\nthe single witness is enough to \"justify the ways of God,\" and reduces\nwhat otherwise would have been a monstrous triumph of evil to the\ncharacter of a severe trial of our faith, severe indeed as the trials of\nan evil world will be, but no more than a trial such as, with God's\ngrace, may be overcome.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE D. P. 189.\n\n_\"It was an admirable definition of that which excites laughter,\"_\n&c.--[Greek: To geloion apurtaepa ti chai aiochos auodnnoy chai on\nphthartichon oion enthus to geloion prosopon aischron ti chai\ndieotruppenon anen odunaes]--_Aristotle, Poetic,_ ii.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE E. P. 245.\n\n\"_I would endeavour just to touch upon some of the purposes for which\nthe Scripture tells us that Christ died_.\"--The Collects for Easter\nSunday and the Sundays just before it and after it, illustrate the\nenumeration here given. The Collect for the Sunday next before Easter\nspeaks of Christ's death only as an \"example of his great humility.\" The\nCollect for Easter-day speaks of the resurrection, and connects it with\nour spiritual resurrection, as does also the Collect for the first\nSunday after Easter. But the collect for the Second Sunday after Easter\nspeaks of Christ as being at once our sacrifice for sin and our example\nof godly life,--a sacrifice to be regarded with entire thankfulness, and\nan example to be daily followed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE F. P. 282.\n\n\"_Such also was to be the state of the Christian Church after our Lord's\nascension_.\"--And therefore, as I think, St. Peter applies to the\nChristians of Asia Minor the very terms applied to the Jews living in\nAssyria or in Egypt; he addresses them as [Greek: parepidaemois\ndiasporas], (1 Peter i. 1,) that is, as strangers and sojourners,\nscattered up and down in a country that was not properly their own, and\nliving in a sort of banishment from their true home. That the words are\nnot addressed to Jewish Christians, and therefore are not to be\nunderstood in their simple historical sense, seems evident from the\nsecond chapter of the Epistle, verses 9, 10, and iv. 2,3.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE G. P. 315.\n\n\"_Not only an outward miracle, but the changed circumstances of the\ntimes may speak God's will no less clearly than a miracle_,\" &c.--What I\nhave here said does not at all go beyond what has been said on the same\nsubject by Hooker: \"Laws, though both ordained of God himself, and the\nend for which they were ordained continuing, may, notwithstanding,\ncease, if by alteration of persons or times they be found insufficient\nto attain unto that end. In which respect why may we not presume that\nGod doth even call for such change or alteration as the very condition\nof things themselves doth make necessary?... In this case, therefore,\nmen do not presume to change God's ordinance, but they yield thereunto,\nrequiring itself to be changed.\"--_Ecclesiastical Polity_, b. iii. \u00a7 10.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE H. P. 320.\n\n_\"Nor is it less strange that any should ever have been afraid of their\nunderstandings, and should have sought goodness through prejudice, and\nblindness, and folly_.\"--For some time past the words \"Rationalism\" and\n\"Rationalistic\" have been freely used as terms of reproach by writers on\nreligious subjects; the 73d No. of the \"Tracts for the Times\" is\nentitled, \"On the introduction of Rationalistic Principles into\nReligion,\" and a whole chapter in Mr. Gladstone's late work on Church\nPrinciples is headed \"Rationalism.\" Yet we still want a clear definition\nof the thing signified by this name. The Tract for the Times says, \"To\nrationalize, is to ask for _reasons_ out of place; to ask improperly how\nwe are to _account_ for certain things; to be unwilling to believe them\nunless they can be accounted for, i.e. referred to something else as a\ncause, to some existing system, as harmonizing with them, or taking them\nup into itself.... It is characterised by two peculiarities;--its love\nof systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience, on\nthe evidence of sense.\"--P. 2. Mr. Gladstone says more generally,\n\"Rationalism is commonly, at least in this country, taken to be the\nreduction of Christian _doctrine_ to the standard and measure of the\nhuman understanding.\"--P. 37. But neither of these definitions will\ninclude all the arguments and statements which have been called by\nvarious writers \"rationalistic;\" and while the terms used are thus\nvague, they are often applied very indiscriminately, and the tendency of\nthis use of them is to depreciate the exercise of the intellectual\nfaculties generally. The subject seems to deserve fuller consideration\nthan it has yet received; there is a real evil which the term\nRationalism is meant to denounce; but it has not been clearly\napprehended, and what is good has sometimes been confounded with it, and\ndenounced under the same name.\n\nI cannot pretend to discuss the subject fully in a mere note, even if I\nwere otherwise competent to do it. But one or two points may be noticed,\nas likely to assist the inquiry, wherever it is worthily entered on.\n\n1st. It is important to bear in mind the distinction which Coleridge\nenforces so earnestly between the understanding and the reason. I do not\nknow whether Mr. Gladstone, in the passage quoted above, uses the word\n\"understanding\" as synonymous with reason, or in that stricter sense in\nwhich Coleridge employs it. But the writer of the Tract seems to allude\nto the stricter sense, when he calls it a characteristic of rationalism\n\"to base its system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense.\"\nIf this be the case, then it would seem that rationalism is the\nappealing to the decision of the understanding in points where the\ndecision properly belongs not to the understanding, but to the reason.\nThis is a great fault, and one to which all persons who belong to the\nsensualist school in philosophy, as opposed to the idealist school,\nwould be more or less addicted. But then, this fault consists not in an\nover-estimating of man's intellectual nature generally, but in the\nexalting one part of it unduly, to the injury of another part; in\ndeferring to the understanding, rather than to the reason.\n\n2d. Faith and reason are often invidiously contrasted with each other,\nas if they were commonly described in Scripture as antagonists; whereas\nfaith is more properly opposed to sight, or to lust, being, in fact, a\nvery high exercise of the pure reason; inasmuch as we believe truths\nwhich our senses do not teach us, and which our passions would have us,\ntherefore, reject, because those truths are taught by Him in whom reason\nrecognises its own author, and the infallible source of all truth.\n\n3d. It were better to oppose reason to passion than to faith; for it may\nbe safely said, that he who neglects his reason, so far as he does\nneglect it, does not lead a life of faith afterwards, but a life of\npassion. He does not draw nearer to God, but to the brutes, or rather to\nthe devils; for his passions cannot be the mere instinctive appetites of\nthe brute, but derive from the wreck of his intellectual powers, which\nhe cannot utterly destroy, just so much of a higher nature that they are\nsins, and not instincts, belonging to the malignity of diabolic nature,\nrather than to the mere negative evil of the nature of brutes.\n\n4th. Faith may be described as reason leaning upon God. Without God,\nreason is either overpowered by sense and understanding, and, in a\nmanner, overgrown, so that it cannot comprehend its proper truths; or,\nbeing infinite, it cannot discover all the truths which concern it, and\ntherefore needs a farther revelation to enlighten it. But with God's\ngrace strengthening it to assert its supremacy over sense and\nunderstanding, and communicating to it what of itself it could not have\ndiscovered, it then having gained strength and light not its own, and\ndoing and seeing consciously by God's help, becomes properly faith.\n\n5th. Faith without reason, is not properly faith, but mere power\nworship; and power worship may be devil worship; for it is reason which\nentertains the idea of God--an idea essentially made up of truth and\ngoodness, no less than of power. A sign of power exhibited to the senses\nmight, through them, dispose the whole man to acknowledge it as divine;\nyet power in itself is not divine, it may be devilish. But when reason\nrecognises that, along with this power, there exist also wisdom and\ngoodness, then it perceives that here is God; and the worship which,\nwithout reason, might have been idolatry, being now according to\nreason is faith.\n\n6th. If this were considered, men would be more careful of speaking\ndisparagingly of reason, seeing that it is the necessary condition of\nthe existence of faith. It is quite true, that when we have attained to\nfaith, it supersedes reason; we walk by sunlight, rather than by\nmoonlight; following the guidance of infinite reason, instead of finite.\nBut how are we to attain to faith? in other words, how can we\ndistinguish God's voice from the voice of evil? for we must distinguish\nit to be God's voice before we can have faith in it. We distinguish it,\nand can distinguish it no otherwise, by comparing it with that idea of\nGod which reason intuitively enjoins, the gift of reason being God's\noriginal revelation of himself to man. Now, if the voice which comes to\nus from the unseen world agree not with this idea, we have no choice but\nto pronounce it not to be God's voice; for no signs of power, in\nconfirmation of it, can alone prove it to be God. God is not power only,\nbut power, and truth, and holiness; and the existence of even infinite\npower, does not necessarily involve in it truth and holiness also; else\nthe notion of the world being governed by an evil being would be no more\nthan a contradiction in terms; and the horrible strife of the two\nprinciples of Manicheism would be a mere matter of indifference; for if\npower alone constitutes God, whichever principle triumphed over the\nother, would become God by the very fact of its victory; and thus\ntriumphant evil would be good.\n\n7th. Reason, then, is the mean whereby we attain to faith, and escape\nthe devil worship of idolatry; but the understanding is not a necessary\ncondition of faith, and very often impedes it; for the understanding\nhaving for its basis the reports of sense and experience, has no direct\nway of arriving at things invisible, and rather shrinks back from that\nworld with which it is in no way familiar. It has a work to do in regard\nto revelation, and an important work; but divine things not being its\nproper matter, its work concerning them must be subordinate, and its\ntendency is always to fall back from the invisible to the visible,--from\nmatters of faith to matters of experience. Its work, with respect to\nrevelation, is this--that it should inquire into the truth of the\noutward signs of it; which outward signs being necessarily things\nvisible and sensible, fall within its province of judgment. Thus\nunderstanding judges the external witnesses of a revelation: if miracles\nbe alleged, it is the business of understanding to ascertain the fact of\ntheir occurrence; if a book claim to be the record of a revelation, it\nbelongs to the understanding to make out the origin of this book, the\ntime when it was written, who were its authors, and what is the first\nand grammatical meaning of its language. Or, again, if any men profess\nto be the depositaries of divine truth, by an extraordinary commission\nfrom God, the understanding, being familiar with man's nature and\nmotives, can judge of their credibility--can see whether there are any\nmarks of folly in them, or of dishonesty, or whether they are at once\nsensible and honest. And in all such matters, the prerogative of the\nunderstanding to judge is not to be questioned; for all such points are\nstrictly within its dominion; and our Lord's words are of universal\napplication, that we should render to C\u00e6sar the things which are\nC\u00e6sar's, no less than we should render to God the things that are God's.\n\nFaith may exist, as I said, without the action of the understanding, but\nnever without that of the reason. It may exist independent of the\nunderstanding, because faith in God is the natural result of the idea of\nGod: and that idea belongs to the reason, and the understanding is not\nconcerned with it. But when a special revelation has been given us,\nthrough human instruments; when the understanding is called in to\ncertify the particular fact, that in such and such particular persons,\nwritings, or events, God has made himself manifest in an extraordinary\nmanner; it is the human instrumentality which requires the judgment of\nthe understanding; the bringing in of human characters, and sensible\nfacts, which are matters of sense and experience; and, therefore, it is\nmere ignorance when Christians speak slightingly of the outward and\nhistorical evidences of Christianity, and indulge in very misplaced\ncontempt for Paley and others who have worked out the historical proof\nof it. Such persons may observe, if they will, that where the historical\nevidence has not been listened to, there a belief in Christianity,\nproperly so called, is wanting. Living examples might, I think, be named\nof men whose reason entirely acknowledges the internal proofs of a\ndivine origin which are contained in the Christian doctrines, but whose\nunderstandings are not satisfied as to the facts of the Christian\nhistory, and particularly as to the fact of our Lord's resurrection.\nSuch men are a remarkable contrast to those whose understandings are\nfully satisfied of the historical truth of our Lord's resurrection, but\nwho are indifferent to, or actually deny, those doctrinal truths of\nwhich another power than the understanding must be the warrant. It is\nimportant to observe, therefore, that in a revelation involving, as an\nessential part of it, certain historical facts, there is necessarily a\ncall for the judgment of the understanding, although in religious faith\nsimply the understanding may have no place.\n\n8th. Now, then, the clearest notion which can be given of rationalism\nwould, I think, be this: that it is the abuse of the understanding in\nsubjects where the divine and the human, so to speak, are intermingled.\nOf human things the understanding can judge, of divine things it\ncannot;--and thus, where the two are mixed together, its inability to\njudge of the one part makes it derange the proportions of both, and the\njudgment of the whole is vitiated. For example, the understanding\nexamines a miraculous history; it judges truly of what I may call the\nhuman part of the case; that is to say, of the rarity of miracles,--of\nthe fallibility of human testimony,--of the proneness of most minds to\nexaggeration,--and of the critical arguments affecting the genuineness\nor the date of the narrative itself. But it forgets the divine part,\nnamely, the power and providence of God, that He is really ever present\namongst us, and that the spiritual world, which exists invisibly all\naround us, may conceivably, and by no means impossibly, exist, at some\ntimes and to some persons, even visibly. These considerations, which the\nunderstanding is ignorant of, would often modify our judgment as to the\nhuman parts of the case. Things not impossible in themselves are\nbelieved upon sufficient testimony; and with all the carelessness and\nexaggeration of historians, the mass of history is notwithstanding\ngenerally credible. Again, with regard to the history of the Old\nTestament, our judgment of the human part in it requires to be\nconstantly modified by our consciousness of the divine part, or\notherwise it cannot fail to be rationalistic; that is, it will be the\njudgment of the understanding only, unchecked by the reason. Gesenius'\nCommentary on Isaiah is rationalistic, for it regards Isaiah merely as a\nJewish writer, zealously attached to the religion of his country, and\nlamenting the decay of his nation, and anxiously looking for its future\nrestoration. No doubt Isaiah was all this, and therefore Gesenius'\nCommentary is critically and historically very valuable; the human part\nof Isaiah is nowhere better illustrated; but the divine part of the\nprophecy of Isaiah is no less real, and the consciousness of its\nexistence should actually qualify our feelings and language even with\nreference to the human part.\n\n9th. The fault, then, of rationalism appears to me to consist not so\nmuch in what it has as in what it has not. The understanding has its\nproper work to do with respect to the Bible, because the Bible consists\nof human writings and contains a human history. Critical and historical\ninquiries respecting it are, therefore, perfectly legitimate; it\ncontains matter which is within the province of the understanding, and\nthe understanding has God's warrant for doing that work which he\nappointed it to do; only, let us remember, that the understanding cannot\nascend to things divine; that for these another faculty is\nnecessary,--reason or faith. If this faculty be living in us, then there\ncan be no rationalism; and what is called so is then no other than the\nvoice of Christian truth. Where a man's writings show that he is keenly\nalive to the divine part of Scripture, that he sees God ever in it, and\nregards it truly as his word, his judgments of the human part in it are\nnot likely to be rationalistic; and if his understanding decides\naccording to its own laws, upon points within its own province, while\nhis faith duly tempers it, and restrains it from venturing upon\nanother's dominion, the result will, in all probability, be such as\ncommonly attends the use of God's manifold gifts in their just\nproportions,--it will image, after our imperfect measure, the holiness\nof God and the truth of God.\n\nIt is very true, and should be acknowledged in the fullest manner, that\nfor the study of the highest moral and spiritual questions another\nfaculty than the understanding is wanting; and that without this faculty\nthe understanding alone cannot arrive at truth. But it is no less true,\nthat while there is, on the one side, a faculty higher than the\nunderstanding, which is entitled to pronounce upon its defects; \"for he\nthat is spiritual judgeth all things,\" ([Greek: auachriuei];) so there\nis a clamour often raised against it, not from above, but from\nbelow,--the clamour of mere shallowness and ignorance, and passion. Of\nthis sort is some of the outcry which is raised against rationalism. Men\ndo not leap, _per saltum mortalem_, from ordinary folly to divine\nwisdom: and the foolish have no right to think that they are angels,\nbecause they are not humanly wise. There is a deep and universal truth\nin St. Paul's words, where he says, that Christians wish \"not to be\nunclothed but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life.\"\nWisdom is gained, not by renouncing or despising the understanding, but\nby adding to its perfect work the perfect work of reason, and of\nreason's perfection, faith.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE I. P. 331.\n\n\"_A famous example of this may be seen in the sixth chapter of St.\nJohn,\"_ &c.--The interpretation of this chapter, and particularly of the\npart alluded to in the text, is of no small importance; for it is\nremarkable, that the highest notions with respect to the presence of\nour Lord in the Holy Communion are often grounded upon this passage in\nSt. John's Gospel, which yet, in the judgment of others, most decisively\nrepels them.\n\nThe whole question resolves itself into this--Are our Lord's words in\nthis place co-ordinate with the Holy Communion, or subordinate to it?\nThat is, do they and the communion alike point to some great truth\nsuperior to them both: or do our Lord's words, in St. John, point to the\ncommunion itself as their highest meaning?\n\nThe communion itself expresses a truth above itself by a symbolical\naction; the words of our Lord, in St. John, are exactly the same with\nthat symbolic action; it is natural, therefore, to understand them not\nas referring to it, but to the same[14] higher truth to which it refers\nalso: and the more so as the communion is not once mentioned by St. John\neither in his Gospel or in his Epistles; but the idea which the\ncommunion expresses appears to have been familiar to his mind; at least,\nif we suppose that his mention of the blood and water flowing from our\nLord's side in his Gospel, and his allusion again to the same fact in\nhis Epistle, have reference in any degree to it, which seems to me\nmost probable.\n\n[Footnote 14: The common tendency to make the Christian sacraments an\nultimate end rather than a mean, is exhibited in the heading of the\ntenth chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in our authorized\nversion, where we find the first verses described as stating, that \"the\nJews' sacraments were types of ours.\" Whereas, so far is it from the\napostle's argument to represent our sacraments as the reality of which\nthe Jews' sacraments were the type, that he is describing theirs and\nours as co-ordinate with each other, and both alike subordinate to the\nsame truth; and he argues, that if the Jews, with their sacraments, did\nnotwithstanding lose the reality which those sacraments typified, so we\nshould take heed lest we, with our sacraments, should lose it also. The\nerroneous heading is not given in the Geneva Bible, where we have, on\nthe contrary, the true observation; \"the sacraments of the old fathers\nwere all one with ours, for they respected Christ only.\" It is true that\nif no more were meant than that \"the Jews' sacraments were like ours,\"\nthere would be no reason to object to the expression; but apparently\nmore is meant, as the word type seems to imply that what it is compared\nwith is the reality, of which it is itself only the image; and one thing\ncannot properly be called the type of another, when both are but types\nof the same third thing. But the divines of James the First's reign and\nof his son's, were to the reformers exactly what the so-called fathers\nwere to the apostles: the very same tendencies, growing up even in\nElizabeth's reign, becoming strengthened under the Stuart kings, and\nfully developed in the nonjurors, which distinguish the divines of the\nseventeenth century from those of the sixteenth, distinguish also the\nchurch system from the gospel. There are many who readily acknowledge\nthis difference in the English church, while they would deny it in the\ncase of the ancient church. Indeed, it is not yet deemed prudent to avow\nopenly that they prefer the so-called fathers to the apostles, and\ntherefore they try to persuade themselves that both speak the same\nlanguage. And doubtless, if the Scriptures are to be interpreted\naccording to the rule of the writers of the third, and fourth, and fifth\ncenturies, the thing can easily be effected; as, by a similar process,\nthe Articles of the Church of England, if interpreted according to the\nrule of the nonjurors and their successors, might be made to speak the\nvery sentiments which their authors designed to condemn.]\n\nOur Lord repels the notion of a literal acceptation of his words, where\nhe says,--\"It is the Spirit which profiteth, the flesh profiteth\nnothing; the words which I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are\nlife.\" It seems impossible, therefore, to refer these words, which he\ntells us expressly are Spirit and life, to any outward act of eating and\ndrinking as their highest truth and object.\n\nBut the words in the sixth chapter of St. John do highly illustrate the\ninstitution and purpose of the communion, and especially the remarkable\nwords which our Lord used in instituting it. They show what infinite\nimportance he attached to that truth which he expressed both in\nsymbolical words and action under the same figure, of eating His body\nand drinking His blood. But to suppose that that truth can only be\nrealized by one particular ritual action, so that the one great work of\na Christian is to receive the Lord's supper,--which it must be, if our\nLord's words in the sixth chapter of St. John refer to the\ncommunion,--is so contrary to the whole character of our Lord's\nteaching, and not least so in the very words so misinterpreted, that to\nmaintain such a doctrine, leading, as it does, to such manifold\nsuperstitions, is actually to preach another Gospel than Christ's--to\nbring in a mystical religion instead of a spiritual one,--to do worse\nthan to Judaize.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE K. P. 345.\n\n_\"A set of persons, who wish to magnify the uncertainties of the\nScripture in order to recommend more plausibly the guidance of some\nsupposed authoritative interpreter of it.\"_--\"The high church party,\" we\nhave been lately told, \"take Holy Scripture for their guide, and, in the\ninterpretation of it, defer to the authority of primitive antiquity: the\nlow church party contend for the sufficiency of private judgment.\" It is\nbecome of the greatest importance to see clearly, not what one party, or\nanother, may contend for, but what is the real truth, and what,\naccordingly, is the duty of every Christian man to do in this matter.\nThe sermon to which this note refers, is an attempt to show that\nScripture is not hopelessly obscure or ambiguous; but it may not be\ninexpedient here to consider a little, what are the objections to the\nprinciple of the high church party; to clear away certain difficulties\nwhich are supposed to beset the opposite principle; and to state, if\npossible, what the truth of the whole question is.\n\nI. The objections to the principle of the high church party are these:\n1st. Its extreme vagueness. What is primitive antiquity? and where is\nits authority to be found? Does \"primitive antiquity\" mean the first\nthree centuries? or the first two? or the first five? or the first\nseven? Does it include any of the general councils? or one of them? or\nfour? or six? Are Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian the latest writers of\n\"primitive antiquity?\" or does it end with Augustine? or does it\ncomprehend the venerable Bede? One writer has lately told us, that our\nReformers wished the people to be taught, \"that, for almost seven\nhundred years, the church was most pure.\" Are we, then, to hold that\n\"primitive antiquity\" embraces a period of nearly seven centuries? Seven\ncenturies are considerably more than a third part of the whole duration\nof the church, from its foundation to this hour: can the third part of a\nnation's history be called its primitive antiquity? Is a tenet, or a\npractice taught when Christianity had been more than six hundred years\nin the world, to be called primitive? We know not, then, in the first\nplace, what length of time is signified by \"primitive antiquity.\"\n\nBut let it signify any length of time we choose, I ask, next, where is\nits authority to be found? In the decisions of the general councils? But\nif we call the first four centuries \"primitive antiquity,\" we find in\nthis period only two general councils; if we include the fifth century,\nwe get four; if we take in the sixth and seventh centuries, we have\nthen, in all, six general councils. Will the decisions of any, or all,\nof these six councils furnish us with an authoritative interpretation of\nScripture? They give us the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan creeds;\nthey condemn various notions with respect to the person of our Lord, and\nto some other points of belief; and they contain a variety of\nregulations for the discipline and order of the church; but, with the\nexception of some particular passages, there is no authority in the\ncreeds, or canons, or anathemas of those councils, for the\ninterpretation of Scripture; they leave its difficulties just where they\nwere before. It is but little then, which the first six general\ncouncils will do towards providing the student of Scripture with an\ninfallible standard of interpretation.\n\nWhere, however, except in the councils, can we find any thing claiming\nto be the voice of the church? Neither individual writers, nor yet all\nthe writers of the first seven centuries together, can properly be\ncalled the church. They form, even altogether, but a limited number of\nindividuals, who, in different countries, and at different periods,\nexpressed, in writing, their own sentiments, but without any public\nauthority. Origen, one of the ablest and most learned of them all, was\nanathematized by the second council of Constantinople; Tertullian was\nheretical during a part of his life; Lactantius was taxed with\nheterodoxy. How are we to know who were sound? And if sound generally,\nthat is to say, if they stand charged with no heretical error, yet it\ndoes not follow that a man is infallible because he is not heretical;\nand none of these writers have been distinguished like the five great\nRoman lawyers whom the edict of Theodosius[15] selected from the mass,\nand gave to their decisions a legal authority. Or again, if it be said\nthat the agreement of the great majority of them is to be regarded as\ndecisive, we answer, that as no individual amongst them is in himself an\nauthority legally, so neither can any number of them be so; and if a\nmoral authority only be meant, such as we naturally ascribe to the\nconcurring judgment of many eminent men, then this is a totally\ndifferent question, and is open to inquiry in every separate case; for\nas, on the one hand, no one denies that such a concurring judgment is\n_an_ authority, yet, on the other hand, it may be outweighed, either by\nthe worth of the few who differ from the judgment, or by the reason of\nthe case itself; and the concurring judgment of the majority may show no\nmore than the force of a general prejudice, which only a very few\nindividuals were sensible enough to resist.\n\n[Footnote 15: Cod. Theodos. lib. i. tit. iv. The edict is issued in the\nname of the emperors Theodosius (the younger) and Valentinian (the\nyounger), in the year A.D. 426.]\n\nIn fact, it would greatly help to clear this question if we understand\nwhat we mean by allowing, or denying, the authority of the so-called\nfathers. The term _authority_ is ambiguous, and according to the sense\nin which I use it, I should either acknowledge it or deny it.--The\nwriters of the first four, or of the first seven centuries, have _an_\nauthority, just as the scholiasts and ancient commentators have: some of\nthem, and in some points, are of weight singly; the agreement of many\nof thorn has much weight; the agreement of almost all of them would have\ngreat weight. In this sense, I acknowledge their authority; and it would\nbe against all sound principles of criticism to deny it. But if, by\nauthority, is meant a _decisive_ authority, a judgment which may not be\nquestioned, then the claim of authority in such a case, for any man, or\nset of men, is either a folly or a revelation. Such an authority is not\nhuman, but divine: if any man pretends to possess it, let him show God's\nclear warrant for his pretension, or he must be regarded as a deceiver\nor a madman.\n\nBut it may be said, that an authority not to be questioned was\nconferred, by the Roman law, on the opinions of a certain number of\ngreat lawyers: if a judge believed that their interpretation of the law\nwas erroneous, he yet was not at liberty to follow his own private\njudgment in departing from it. Why may not the same thing be allowed in\nthe church? and why may not the interpretations of Cyprian, or\nAthanasius, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, be as decisive, with respect to\nthe true sense of the Scripture, as those of Gaius, Paulus, Modestinus,\nUlpian, and Papinian, were acknowledged to be with respect to the sense\nof the Roman law?\n\nThe answer is, that the emperor's edict could absolve the judge from\nfollowing his own convictions about the sense of the law, because it\ngave to the authorized interpretation the force of law. The text, as the\njudge interpreted it, was a law repealed; the comment of the great\nlawyers was now the law in its room. As a mere literary composition, he\nmight interpret it rightly, and Gaius, or Papinian, might be wrong; but\nif his interpretation was ever so right grammatically or critically,\nyet, legally it was nothing to the purpose;--Gaius's interpretation had\nsuperseded it, and was not the law which he was bound to obey. But, in\nthe church, the only point to be aimed at is the discovery of the true\nmeaning of the text of the divine law: no human power can invest the\ncomment with equal authority. The emperor said, and might say to his\njudges, \"You need not consider what was the meaning of the decemvirs,\nwhen they wrote the twelve tables, or, of Aquillius, when he drew up the\nAquillian law. The law for you is not what the decemvirs may have meant,\nbut what their interpreters may have meant: the decemvirs' meaning, if\nit was their meaning, is no longer the law of Rome.\" But who can dare to\nsay to a Christian, \"You need not consider what was the meaning of our\nLord and his apostles; the law for you now is the meaning of Cyprian, or\nAmbrose, or Chrysostom;--that meaning has superseded the meaning of\nChrist.\" A Christian must find out Christ's meaning, and believe that he\nhas found it, or else he must still seek for it. It is a matter, not of\noutward submission, but of inward faith; and if in our inward mind we\nare persuaded that the interpreter has mistaken our Lord's meaning, how\ncan we by possibility adopt that interpretation in faith?\n\nHere we come to a grave consideration--that this doctrine of an\ninfallible rule of interpretation may suit ignorance or scepticism: it\nis death to a sincere and reasonable and earnest faith. It is not hard\nfor a sceptical mind to deceive itself by saying, that it receives\nwhatever the church declares to be true: it may receive any number of\ndoctrines, but it will not really believe them. We may restrain our\ntongues from disputing them, we may watch every restless thought that\nwould question them, and instantly, by main force, as it were, put it\ndown; but all this time our minds do not assimilate to them; they do not\ntake them up into their own nature, so as to make them a part of\nthemselves, freshening and supplying the life-blood of their very being.\nTruth must be believed by the mind's own act; our souls must be drawn\ntowards it with a reasonable love; some affinity there must be between\nit and them, or else they can never really comprehend it. The sceptic\nmay desperately become a fanatic also, but he is not become, therefore,\na believer.\n\nAuthority cannot compel belief; the sceptic who knows not what it is to\ngrasp anything with the firm grasp of faith, may mistake his\nacquiescence in a doctrine for belief in it; the ignorant and careless,\nwho believe only what their senses tell them, may lay up the words of\ndivine truth in their memory, may repeat them loudly, and be vehement\nagainst all who question them. But minds to which faith is a necessity,\nwhich cannot be contented to stand by the side of truth, but must become\naltogether one with it,--minds which know full well the difference\nbetween opinion and conviction, between not questioning and\nbelieving,--they, when their own action is superseded by an authority\nforeign to themselves, are in a condition which they find intolerable.\nTold to believe what they cannot believe; told that they ought not to\nbelieve what they feel most disposed to believe; they retire altogether\nfrom the region of divine truth, as from a spot tainted with moral\ndeath, and devote themselves to other subjects: to physical science, it\nmay be, or to political; where the inherent craving of their nature may\nyet be gratified, where, however insignificant the truth may be, they\nmay yet find some truth to believe. This has been the condition of too\nmany great men in the church of Rome; and it accounts for that\nbitterness of feeling with which Machiavelli, and others like him,\nappear to have regarded the whole subject of Christianity.\n\nThe system, then, of deferring to the authority of what is called the\nancient church in the interpretation of Scripture, is impracticable,\ninasmuch as, with regard to the greatest part of the Scripture, the\nchurch, properly speaking, has said nothing at all; and if it were\npracticable, it would be untenable, because neither the old councils,\nnor individual writers, could give any sign that they had a divine gift\nof interpretation; and if such a gift had been given to them, it would\nhave been equivalent to a new revelation, the sense of the comment being\nthus preferred to what we could not but believe to be the sense of the\ntext. Above all, the system is destructive of faith, having a tendency\nto substitute passive acquiescence for real conviction; and therefore I\nshould not say that the excess of it was popery, but that it had once\nand actually those characters of evil which we sometimes express by the\nterm popery, but which may be better signified by the term idolatry; a\nreverence for that which ought not to be reverenced, leading to a want\nof faith in that which is really deserving of all adoration and love.\n\nII. But it is said that the system of relying on private judgment is\nbeset by no less evils: that it is itself inconsistent, and leads to\nSocinianism and Rationalism, and, in the end, to utter unbelief; so\nthat, the choice being only between two evils, men may choose the system\nof church authority as being the less evil of the two. If this were so,\nI see not how faith could be attained at all, or what place would be\nleft for Christian truth. But the system of the Church of England[16]\nis, I am persuaded, fully consistent, and has no tendency either to\nSocinianism or Rationalism. Let us see first what that system is.\n\n[Footnote 16: Much has been lately written to show that the Church of\nEngland allows the authority of the ancient councils and writers, and\ndoes not allow the right of private judgment. But it is perfectly clear,\nfrom the 21st Article, that it does not allow the authority of councils;\nthat is to say, it holds that a council's exposition of doctrine may be\nfalse, and that such an exposition is of no force \"unless it may be\ndeclared that it be taken out of Holy Scripture.\" Who, then, is to\ndeclare this? for to suppose that the declaration of the council itself\nis meant is absurd: the answer, I imagine, would be, according to the\nmind of the Reformers, \"Every particular or national church,\" and\nespecially the King as the head of the church. They would not have\nallowed private judgment, because they conceived that a private person\nhad nothing to do but to obey the government; and it was for the\ngovernment to determine what the truth of Scripture was. The Church of\nEngland, then, expressly disclaims the authority of councils, and, in\nits official instruments, it neither allows nor condemns private\njudgment; but the opinions of the Reformers, and the constitution of the\nchurch in the 16th century, were certainly against private judgment:\ntheir authority for the interpretation of Scripture was undoubtedly the\nsupreme government of the church, i.e. not the bishops, but the King and\nparliament. But then this had respect not to the power of discerning\ntruth, but to the right of publishing it, which is an wholly different\nquestion. That an individual was not bound _in foro conscienti\u00e6_ to\nadmit the truth of any interpretation of Scripture which did not approve\nitself to his own mind, was no less the judgment of the Church of\nEngland than that if he publicly disputed the interpretation of the\nchurch, he might be punished as unruly and a despiser of government. But\nthen it should ever be remembered that the church, with the Reformers,\nwas not the clergy. And now that the right of publication is conceded by\nthe church, it is quite just to say that the Church of England allows\nprivate judgment; and if that judgment differ from her own, she condemns\nnot the act of judging at all, but the having come to a false\nconclusion.\n\nIt is urged that the act of I Elizabeth, c. 1, allows that to be heresy\nwhich the first four councils determined to be so. This is true; but it\nalso adjudges to be heresy whatever shall be hereafter declared to be so\nby \"the high court of parliament, with the assent of the clergy in their\nconvocation.\" The Church of England undoubtedly allowed the decisions of\nthe first four councils, in matters of doctrine, to be valid, as it\nallowed the three creeds, because it decided that they were agreeable to\nScripture; but the binding authority was that of the English Parliament,\nnot of the councils of Nic\u00e6a or Constantinople.\n\nAs to the canon of 1571, which allows preachers to teach nothing as\nreligious truth but what is agreeable to the Scriptures, \"_and_ which\nthe catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that very\ndoctrine of Scripture,\" it will be observed that it is merely negative,\nand does not sanction the teaching of the \"catholic fathers and ancient\nbishops,\" generally, or say that men shall teach what they taught; but\nthat they shall not teach as matter of religious faith, a new deduction\nfrom Scripture of their own making, but such truths as had been actually\ndeduced from Scripture before, namely, the great articles of the\nChristian faith. Farther, the canons of 1571 are of no authority, not\nhaving received the royal assent.--_See Strype's Life of Parker_, p.\n322, ed. 1711.]\n\nIt is invidiously described as maintaining \"the sufficiency of private\njudgment.\" Now we maintain the sufficiency of private judgment in\ninterpreting the Scriptures in no other sense than that in which every\nsane man maintains its sufficiency, in interpreting Thucydides or\nAristotle; we mean, that, instead of deferring always to some one\ninterpreter, as an idle boy follows implicitly the Latin version of his\nGreek lesson, the true method is to consult all[17] accessible\nauthorities, and to avail ourselves of the assistance of all. And we\ncontend, that, by this process, as we discover, for the most part, the\ntrue meaning of Thucydides and Aristotle with undoubted certainty, so we\nmay also discover, not, indeed, in every particular part or passage, but\ngenerally, the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures with no less\ncertainty.\n\n[Footnote 17: Of course no reasonable man can doubt the importance of\nstudying the early Christian writers, as illustrating not only the\nhistory of their own times, but the New Testament also. For the Old\nTestament, indeed, they do little or nothing, and for the New they are\nof much less assistance than might have been expected; but still there\nis no doubt that they are often useful.]\n\nBut if another man maintains that a different meaning is the true one,\nhow are we to silence him, and how are we justified in calling him a\nheretic? If by the term heretic we are to imply moral guilt, I am not\njustified in applying it to any Christian, unless his doctrines are\npositively sinful, or there is something wicked, either in the way of\ndishonesty or bitterness, in his manner of maintaining them. The guilt\nof any given religious error, in any particular case, belongs only to\nthe judgment of Him who reads the heart. But if we mean by heresy \"a\ngrave error in matters of the Christian faith, overthrowing or\ncorrupting some fundamental article of it,\" then we are as fully\njustified in calling a gross misinterpretation of Scripture \"heresy,\" as\nwe should be justified in calling a gross misinterpretation of a profane\nGreek or Latin author, ignorance, or want of scholarship. There is no\ninfallible authority in points of grammar and criticism, yet men do\nspeak confidently, notwithstanding, as to learning and ignorance; Porson\nand Herman are known to have understood their business, and a writer who\nwere to set their decisions at defiance, and to indulge in mere\nextravagances of interpretation, would be set down as one who knew\nnothing about the matter. So we judge daily in all points of literature\nand science; nay, we in the same manner venture to call some persons\nmad, and on the strength of our conviction we deprive them of their\nproperty, and shut them up in a madhouse: yet if madmen wore to insist\nthat they were sane, and that we were mad, I know not to what infallible\nauthority we could appeal; and, after all, what are we to do with those\nwho deny that authority to be infallible? we must then go to another\ninfallible authority to guarantee the infallibility of the first, and\nthis process will run on for ever.\n\nBut, in truth, there is more in the matter than the being justified or\nnot justified in calling our neighbour a heretic. The real point of\nanxiety, I imagine, with many good and thinking men is this: whether a\nreasonable belief can be fairly carried through; whether the notion of\nthe all-sufficiency of Scripture is not liable to objections no less\nthan the system of church-authority; whether, in short, our Christian\nfaith can be consistently maintained without a mortal leap at some part\nor other of the process; nay, whether, in fact, if it were otherwise,\nour faith would not seem to stand rather on the wisdom of man than on\nthe power of God.\n\nI use these words, because these and other such passages of the\nScripture are often quoted as I have now quoted them, and produce a\ngreat effect on those who do not observe that they are quoted\ninapplicably; for the question is not between man's wisdom and God's\npower, but simply whether we have reason to believe that God's power has\nbeen here manifested; or, rather, to see whether we cannot give a reason\nfor the faith which is in us, such faith resting upon God's power and\nwisdom as manifested in Christ Jesus; for if no reason can be rendered\nfor our faith, then our minds, so far as they are concerned, are\nbelieving a lie; they are believing in spite of those laws by which God\nhas determined their nature and condition.\n\nYet, however we believe, blindly or reasonably, (for some men, by God's\nmercy, are accidentally, as it were, in possession of the truth, the\nfalsehood of their own minds in holding it not being, it is to be hoped,\nimputed to them as a sin;) however we believe, I never mean to say that\nour faith is not God's gift, to be sought for and retained by constant\nprayer and watchfulness, and to be forfeited by carelessness or sin.\nThat is no true faith in which reason does not accord; yet neither can\nreason alone and without God ever become perfected into faith. For\nalthough intellectually, the grounds of belief may be made out\nsatisfactorily, yet we are not able to follow our pure reason by\nourselves; and no work on the evidences of Christianity can by itself\ngive us faith; and much less can amid the manifold conflicts of life\nmaintain it. That faith is thus the gift of God, and not our own work, I\nwould desire to feel as keenly and continually, as with the fullest\nconviction I acknowledge it.\n\nNow, to resume the consideration of that which, as I said, is the real\npoint of anxiety with many. They doubt whether the course of a\nreasonable belief can be held to the end without interruptions: they say\nthat the received notions of the inspiration, and consequently of the\ncomplete truth of the Scriptures cannot reasonably be maintained; that\nhe who does maintain them does so by a happy inconsistency;--he is to\nbe congratulated for not following up his own principles; but why should\nhe then find fault with others who do that avowedly and consistently to\nwhich he is driven against his professions by the clear necessity of\nthe case?\n\nThis argument was pressed by Mr. Newman, some time since, in one of the\nTracts for the Times; and it was conducted, as may be supposed, with\ngreat ingenuity, but with a recklessness of consequences, or an\nignorance of mankind, truly astonishing; for he brought forward all the\ndifficulties and differences which can be found in the Scripture\nnarratives, displayed them in their most glaring form, and merely\nobserved, that as those with whom he was arguing could not solve these\ndifficulties, but yet believed the Scriptures no less in spite of them,\nso the apparent unreasonableness of his doctrine about the priesthood\nwas no ground why it should be rejected--a method of argument most\nblameable in any Christian to adopt towards his brethren; for what if\ntheir faith, being thus vehemently strained, were to give way under the\nexperiment? and if, being convinced that the Scriptures were not more\nreasonable than Mr. Newman's system, they were to end with believing,\nnot both, but neither?\n\nTherefore the question is one of no small anxiety and interest; and it\nis not idly nor wantonly that we must speak the truth upon it, even if\nthat truth may to some seem startling; for by God's blessing, if we do\ngo boldly forward wherever truth shall lead us, our course needs not be\ninterrupted, neither shall a single hair of our faith perish.\n\nThe same laws of criticism which teach us to distinguish between various\ndegrees of testimony, authorize us to assign the very highest rank to\nthe evidences of the writings of St. John and St. Paul. If belief is to\nbe given to any human compositions, it is due to these; yet if we\nbelieve these merely as human compositions, and without assuming\nanything as to their divine inspiration, our Christian faith, as it\nseems to me, is reasonable;--not merely the facts of our Lord's miracles\nand resurrection; but Christian faith, in all its fulness--the whole\ndispensation of the Spirit, the revelation of the redemption of man and\nof the Divine Persons who are its authors--of all that Christian faith,\nand hope, and love can need. And this is so true, that even without\nreckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst St. Paul's writings,--nay,\neven if we choose to reject the three pastoral epistles[18]--yet taking\nonly what neither has been nor can be doubted--the epistles to the\nRomans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and\nThessalonians, we have in these, together with St. John's Gospel and\nFirst Epistle,--giving up, if we choose, the other two,--a ground on\nwhich our faith may stand for ever, according to the strictest rules of\nthe understanding, according to the clearest intuitions of reason.\n\n[Footnote 18: I say this, not as having the slightest doubt myself of\nthe genuineness of any one of the three, but merely to show how much is\nleft that has not been questioned at all, even unreasonably.]\n\nI take the works of St. John and St. Paul as our foundation, because, in\nthe first place, we find in them the historical basis of Christianity;\nthat is to say, we find the facts of our Lord's miracles, and especially\nof his resurrection, and the miraculous powers afterwards continued to\nthe church, established by the highest possible evidence. However pure\nand truly divine the principles taught in the gospel may be, yet we\ncrave to know not only that we were in need of redemption, but that a\nRedeemer has actually appeared; not only that a resurrection to eternal\nlife is probable, but that such a resurrection has actually taken place.\nThis basis of historical fact, which is one of the great peculiarities\nof Christianity, is strictly within the cognizance of the understanding;\nand in the writings of St. John and St. Paul we have that full and\nperfect evidence of it which the strictest laws of the understanding\nrequire.\n\nBut the historical truth being once warranted by the understanding,\nother faculties of our nature now come in to enjoy it, and develop it;\nthe highest reason and the moral and spiritual affections find\nrespectively their proper field and objects, which, whenever presented\nto them in vision or in theory, they must instinctively cling to, but to\nwhich they now abandon themselves without fear of disappointment,\nbecause the understanding has assured them of their reality. We must\nsuppose, on any system, the existence of reason and spiritual affections\nas indispensable to the understanding of the Scriptures; external\nauthority can do nothing for us without these, any more than the mere\nfaculties of the common understanding. But with these we apprehend the\nview which St. John and St. Paul afford to us: it opens before us one\ntruth after another, one glory after another. St. John evidently\nsupposes that his readers were familiar with another account of our\nLord's life and teaching; and we find accordingly, another account\nexisting in the writings of the three other evangelists. One and the\nsame account is manifestly the substance of their three narratives, to\nwhich they thus bear a triple testimony, because none of the three has\nmerely transcribed the others, and none of them apparently was the\noriginal author of it. Thus having now the full record of our Lord's\nteaching, we find that he everywhere refers to the Old Testament as to\nthe word of God, and the record of God's earlier manifestations of\nhimself to man. He has cleared up those especial points in it which\nmight have most perplexed us, as I shall notice more fully hereafter,\nand he represents himself as the perpetual subject of its prophecies. We\nthus receive the Old Testament, as it were, from his hand, and learn\nwhile sitting at his feet to understand the lessons of the law and\nthe prophets.\n\nThus we make Christ the centre of both Testaments, and by so doing, we\ncannot be blind to the divinity pervading both. For the amazing fact\nthat God should come into the world and be in the world cannot by\npossibility stand alone; it hallows, as it were, the whole period of the\nworld's existence, from the beginning to the end, placing all time and\nevery place in relation to God; it disposes us at once to receive the\nfact of the special call of the people of Israel;--it gives, I had\nalmost said, an _\u00e0 priori_ reason why there must have been in earlier\ntimes some shadows, at least, or images, to represent dimly to former\ngenerations that great thing which they were not actually to witness; it\nleads us to believe that there must have been some prophetic voices to\nannounce the future coming of the Lord, or else \"The very stones must\nhave cried out.\"\n\nBut those writings of St. John and St. Paul which were our first lessons\nin Christianity, and those other accounts of our Lord's life and\nteaching to which they introduced us,--can we conceive it possible, that\nthe real meaning of all these shall be hopelessly obscure and uncertain;\nthat if we seek it ever so diligently, we shall not find it? With an\nhumble mind ready to learn, with a heart fully impressed with the sense\nof God's presence, so as to be morally and spiritually in a condition to\nreceive God's truth, can we believe, then, that the use of those\nintellectual means, which open to us certainly the sense of human\nwriters, shall be applied in vain to those writers who were commissioned\nto be the very heralds of a divine message, whose especial business it\nwas to make known what they had themselves heard? Surely if a sufficient\ncertainty of interpretation be attainable in common literature, the\nrevelation of God cannot be the solitary exception.\n\nBut we may be mistaken: we may _believe_ that we interpret truly, but\nwe cannot be _infallibly sure_ of it; we want an authority which shall\ngive us this assurance. This is no doubt the natural craving of our\nweakness; but it is no wiser a craving than if we were to long for the\nheaven to be opened, and for a daily sight of our Lord standing at the\nright hand of God. To live by faith is our appointed condition, and\nfaith excludes an infallible assurance. We must earnestly believe that\nwe have the truth, and die for our belief, if necessary, but we cannot\n_know_ it. No device which the human mind can practise, can exclude the\npossibility of doubt. If we would find an armour which should cover us\nat every point from this subtle enemy, it would be an armour that would\nclose up the pores of the skin, and stop our breath; our fancied\nsecurity would kill us. Is it really possible that, with our knowledge\nof man's nature, our belief in any human authority can really be more\nfree from doubt than our belief in the conclusions of our own reason?\nThere must ever be the liability to uncertainty; we can put no moral\ntruth so surely as that our minds shall always feel it to be absolutely\ncertain. Where is the infallible authority that can assure us even of\nthe existence of God? And will the scepticism that can believe its own\nconclusions in nothing else rest satisfied with one conclusion\nonly--that the writers of the first four centuries cannot err? Surely to\nregard this as the most certain proposition that can be submitted to the\nhuman mind, is no better than insanity.\n\nBut we will consent to trust, it may be said, with God's help, to our\nown deliberate convictions that we have interpreted Scripture truly; but\nyou tell us that the Scripture itself is not inspired in every part; you\ntell us that there are in it chronological and historical difficulties,\nif not errors; that there are possibly some interpolations; that even\nthe apostles may have been in some things mistaken, as in their belief\nthat the end of the world was at hand. Where shall we find a rest for\nour feet, if you first take away from us our infallible interpreter, and\nnow tell us, that even if we can ourselves interpret it aright, yet that\nwe cannot be sure that the very Scripture itself is infallibly true?\n\nIt is very true that our position with respect to the Scriptures is not\nin all points the same as our fathers'. For sixteen hundred years\nnearly, while physical science, and history, and chronology, and\ncriticism, were all in a state of torpor, the questions which now\npresent themselves to our minds could not from the nature of the case\narise. When they did arise, they came forward into notice gradually:\nfirst the discoveries in astronomy excited uneasiness: then as men\nbegan to read more critically, differences in the several Scripture\nnarratives of the same thing awakened attention; more lately, the\ngreater knowledge which has been gained of history, and of language, and\nin all respects the more careful inquiry to which all ancient records\nhave been submitted, have brought other difficulties to light, and some\nsort of answer must be given to them. Mr. Newman, as we have seen, has\nmade use of those difficulties much as the Romanists have used the\ndoctrine of the Trinity when arguing with Trinitarians[19] in defence of\ntransubstantiation. The Romanists said,--\"Here are all these\ninexplicable difficulties in the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet you\nbelieve it.\" So Mr. Newman argues with those who hold the plenary\ninspiration of Scripture, that if they believe that, in spite of all the\ndifficulties which beset it, they may as well believe his doctrine of\nthe priesthood; and many, if I mistake not, alarmed by this\nrepresentation, have actually embraced his opinions.\n\n[Footnote 19: On this proceeding of the Romanists, Stillingfleet\nobserves, \"Methinks for the sake of our common Christianity you should\nno more venture upon such bold and unreasonable comparisons. Do you in\nearnest think it is all one whether men do believe a God, or providence,\nor heaven, or hell, or the Trinity, and incarnation of Christ, if they\ndo not believe transubstantiation? We have heard much of late about old\nand new popery: but if this be the way of representing new popery, by\nexposing the common articles of faith, it will set the minds of all good\nChristians farther from it than ever. For upon the very same grounds we\nmay expect another parallel between the belief of a God and\ntransubstantiation, the effect of which will be the exposing of all\nreligion. This is a very destructive and mischievous method of\nproceeding; but our comfort is that it is very unreasonable, as I hope\nhath fully appeared by this discourse.\"--_Doctrine of the Trinity and\nTransubstantiation compared_, at the end.]\n\nIt has unfortunately happened that the difficulties of the Scripture\nhave been generally treated as objections to the truth of Christianity;\nas such they have been pressed by adversaries, and as such Christian\nwriters have replied to them. But then they become of such tremendous\ninterest, that it is scarcely possible to examine them fairly. If my\nfaith in God and my hope of eternal life is to depend on the accuracy of\na date or of some minute historical particular, who can wonder that I\nshould listen to any sophistry that may be used in defence of them, or\nthat I should force my mind to do any sort of violence to itself, when\nlife and death seem to hang on the issue of its decision?\n\nYet what conceivable connexion is there between the date of Cyrenius's\ngovernment, or the question whether our Lord healed a blind man as he\nwas going into Jericho or as he was leaving it; or whether Judas bought\nhimself the field of blood, or it was bought by the high priests: what\nconnexion can there be between such questions, and the truth of God's\nlove to man in the redemption, and of the resurrection of our Lord? Do\nwe give to any narrative in the world, to any statement, verbal or\nwritten, no other alternative than that it must be either infallible or\nunworthy of belief? Is not such an alternative so extravagant as to be a\ncomplete reductio ad absurdum? And yet such is the alternative which men\nseem generally to have admitted in considering the Scripture narratives:\nif a single error can be discovered, it is supposed to be fatal to the\ncredibility of the whole.\n\nThis has arisen from an unwarranted interpretation of the word\n\"inspiration,\" and by a still more unwarranted inference. An inspired\nwork is supposed to mean a work to which God has communicated his own\nperfections; so that the slightest error or defect of any kind in it is\ninconceivable, and that which is other than perfect in all points cannot\nbe inspired. This is the unwarranted interpretation of the word\n\"inspiration.\" But then follows the still more unwarranted\ninference,--\"If all the Scripture is not inspired, Christianity cannot\nbe true,\" an inference which is absolutely entitled to no other\nconsideration than what it may seem to derive from the number of those\nwho have either openly or tacitly maintained it.\n\nMost truly do I believe the Scriptures to be inspired; the proofs of\ntheir inspiration rise continually with the study of them. The\nscriptural narratives are not only about divine things, but are\nthemselves divinely framed and superintended. I cannot conceive my\nconviction of this truth being otherwise than sure. Yet I must\nacknowledge that the scriptural narratives do not claim this inspiration\nfor themselves; so that if I should be obliged to resign my belief in\nit, which seems to me impossible, I yet should have no right to tax the\nScriptures with having advanced a pretension proved to be unfounded;\ntheir whole credibility as a most authentic history of the most\nimportant facts would remain untouched; the gospel of St. John would\nstill be a narrative as unimpeachable as that of Thucydides, which no\nsane man has ever disbelieved.\n\nSo much for the unwarranted inference, that if the Scripture histories\nare not inspired, the great facts of the Christian revelation cannot be\nmaintained. But it is no less an unwarranted interpretation of the term\n\"inspiration,\" to suppose that it is equivalent to a communication of\nthe Divine perfections. Surely, many of our words and many of our\nactions are spoken and done by the inspiration of God's Spirit, without\nwhom we can do nothing acceptable to God. Yet does the Holy Spirit so\ninspire us as to communicate to us His own perfections? Are our best\nwords or works utterly free from error or from sin? All inspiration does\nnot then destroy the human and fallible part in the nature which it\ninspires; it does not change man into God.\n\nIn one man, indeed, it was otherwise; but He was both God and man. To\nHim the Spirit was given without measure; and as his life was without\nsin, so his words were without error. But to all others the Spirit has\nbeen given by measure; in almost infinitely different measure it is\ntrue: the difference between the inspiration of the common and perhaps\nunworthy Christian who merely said that \"Jesus was the Lord,\" and that\nof Moses, or St. Paul, and St. John, is almost to our eyes beyond\nmeasuring. Still the position remains, that the highest degree of\ninspiration given to man has still suffered to exist along with it a\nportion of human fallibility and corruption.\n\nNow, then, consider the epistles of the blessed Apostle St. Paul, who\nhad the Spirit of God so abundantly, that never we may suppose did any\nmerely human being enjoy a larger share of it. Endowed with the Spirit\nas a Christian, and daily receiving grace more largely, as he became\nmore and more ripe for glory; endowed with the Spirit's extraordinary\ngifts most eminently; favoured also with an abundance of revelations,\ndisclosing to him things ineffable and inconceivable,--are not his\nwritings to be most truly called inspired? Can we doubt that, in what he\nhas told us of things not seen, or not seen as yet,--of Him who\npre-existed in the form of God before he was manifested in the form of\nman,--of that great day, when we shall arise incorruptible, and meet our\nLord in the air, and be joined to him for ever,--can any reasonable mind\ndoubt, that in speaking of these things he spoke what he had heard from\nGod; that to refuse to believe his testimony is really to\ndisbelieve God?\n\nYet this great Apostle expected that the world would come to an end in\nthe generation then existing. When he wrote to the Thessalonians some\nyears before his first imprisonment at Rome, he warned them, no doubt,\nagainst expecting the end immediately: but he appears still to have\nsupposed that it would come in the lifetime of men then living. At a\nlater period, when writing to the Corinthians, his dissuasion of\nmarriage seems to rest mainly upon this impression; it is good not to\nmarry, \"on account of the distress which is close at hand;\" ([Greek:\ndia taen enestosan anankaen]; compare 2 Thess. ii. 2, [Greek: hos hoti\nenestaeken hae haemera tou Kyriou].) \"The time is short,\" he adds; \"the\nfashion of this world is passing away.\" And again, when speaking of the\nresurrection, he says emphatically, \"the dead shall rise incorruptible,\nand _we_ shall be changed;\" where the pronoun being expressed in the\noriginal, [Greek: chai haemeis allagaesometha], shows that by the term\n\"_we_,\" he does not mean the dead, but those who were to be alive at\nChrist's coming. So again, still later, when writing from Rome to the\nPhilippians, he tells them \"the Lord is at hand;\" and later still, even\nin his first epistle to Timothy, he charges Timothy \"to keep his\ncommandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord\nJesus Christ.\" These and other passages cannot without violence be\ninterpreted even singly in any other sense; but taking them together,\ntheir meaning seems absolutely certain. Shall we say, then, that St.\nPaul entertained and expressed a belief which the event did not verify?\nWe may say so, safely and reverently, in this instance; for here he was\nmost certainly speaking as a man, and not by revelation; as it has been\nprovidentially ordered that our Lord's express words on this point have\nbeen recorded--\"Of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels\nin heaven.\" Or again, shall we say, that St. Paul advised the\nCorinthians not to marry, chiefly on this ground; and that this throws a\nsuspicion over his directions in other points? But again it has been\nordered, that in this very place, and no where else in all his writing,\nSt. Paul has expressly said that he was only giving his judgment as a\nChristian, and not speaking with divine authority;--the concluding words\nof the chapter, [Greek: doko de kago pneuma theou echein] do not\nsignify, as our Version renders them, \"And I think also that I have the\nSpirit of God,\" as if he were confirming his own judgment by an\nassertion of his inspiration in a sense beyond that of common\nChristians; but the words say, \"And I think that I too have the Spirit\nof God,\" \"I too as well as others whom you might consult, so that my\njudgment is no less worthy of attention than theirs.\" But it is his\nChristian judgment only that he is giving, as he expressly declares, and\nnot his apostolical command or revelation; a distinction which he never\nmakes elsewhere, and which is in itself so striking, that we seem to\nrecognise in it God's especial mercy to us, that our faith in St. Paul's\ngeneral declarations of divine truth might not be shaken, because in one\nparticular point he was permitted to speak as a man, giving express\nnotice at the same time that he was doing so.\n\nNow it is at least remarkable, that in the only two instances in which\nthe existence of any absence of divine authority is to be discerned in\nSt. Paul's epistles, provision is actually made by God's fondness to\nprevent them from prejudicing our faith in St. Paul's divine authority\ngenerally. And so in whatever points any error may be discoverable in\nScripture, we shall find either that the errors are of a kind wholly\nunconnected with the revelation of what God has done to us, and of what\nwe are to do towards Him; and therefore are perfectly consistent with\nthe inspiration of the writer, unless we take that unwarranted notion of\ninspiration which considers it as equivalent to a communication of God's\nattributes perfectly; (and of this kind are any errors that may exist\neither in points of physical science, or of chronology, or of history;)\nor if there be any thing else which appears inconsistent with\ninspiration, in the sense in which we really may and do apply it to the\nScriptures, namely, that they are a perfect guide and rule in all\nmatters concerning our relations with God, then we shall find that God\nhas made some special provision for the case, to remove what it\notherwise might have had of real difficulty.\n\nThis merciful care is above all to be recognised with regard to one\npoint, which otherwise would, I think, have been a difficulty actually\ninsuperable: I mean the manifestly imperfect moral standard, which in\nsome cases is displayed in the characters of good men in the Old\nTestament. Put the gospel by the side of the law and history of the\nIsraelites; observe what the law permitted, and public opinion under the\nlaw did not condemn; observe the actions recorded of persons who are\ndeclared to have been eminently good, and to have received God's\nespecial blessing; and it is manifest that had not our Lord himself\nvouchsafed his help, one of two things must have happened--either that\nwe must have followed the old heresy of rejecting the Old Testament\naltogether, or else that our respect for the Old Testament must have\nimpeded the growth of the more perfect law of Christ. The true solution\nI do not think that we could have discovered, or ventured to admit on\nless authority than our Lord's. But his express declaration, that some\nthings in the law itself were permitted, because nothing higher could\nthen have been borne, and his stating in detail that in several points\nwhat was accounted good or allowable in the former dispensation was not\nso really, while at the same time he constantly refers to the Old\nTestament as divine, and confirms its language of blessing with respect\nto its most eminent characters, has completely cleared to us the whole\nquestion, and enables us to recognize the divinity of the Old Testament\nand the holiness of its characters, without lying against our\nconsciences and our more perfect revelation, by justifying the actions\nof those characters as right, essentially and abstractedly, although\nthey were excusable, or in some cases actually virtuous, according to\nthe standard of right and wrong which prevailed under the law.\n\nAfter observing God's gracious care for us in this instance, as well as\nin those which I have noticed before, I cannot but feel that we may\nsafely trust Him for every other similar case, if any such there be, and\nthat he will not permit our faith either in him or in his holy word to\nbe shaken, because we do not attempt to close our eyes against truth,\nnor seek to support our faith by sophistry and falsehood. Feeling what\nthe Scriptures are, I would not give unnecessary pain to any one by an\nenumeration of those points in which the literal historical statement of\nan inspired writer has been vainly defended. Some instances will\nprobably occur to most readers; others are perhaps not known, and never\nwill be known to many, nor is it at all needful or desirable that they\nshould know them. But if ever they are brought before them, let them not\ntry to put them aside unfairly, from a fear that they will injure our\nfaith. Let us not do evil that evil may be escaped from; and it is an\nevil, and the fruitful parent of evils innumerable, to do violence to\nour understanding or to our reason in their own appointed fields; to\nmaintain falsehood in their despite, and reject the truth which they\nsanction. If writers of Mr. Newman's school will persist in displaying\nthe difficulties of the Scripture before the eyes of those who had not\nbeen before aware of them, let those who are so cruelly tempted be\nconjured not to be dismayed; to refuse utterly to surrender up their\nsense of truth,--to persist in rejecting the unchristian falsehoods\nwhich they are called upon to worship; sure that after all that can be\nsaid, that system will remain false to the end; and their Christian\nfaith, if they do not faithlessly attempt to strengthen it by unlawful\nmeans, will stand no less unshaken.\n\nIn conclusion, Christian faith rests upon Scripture; and as it is in\nitself agreeable to the highest reason, so the authenticity of the\nScriptures on which it rests is assured to us by the deliberate\nconclusions of the understanding; nor is any \"mortal leap\" necessary at\nany part of the process: nor any rejection of one truth, in order to\nretain our hold on another. And if it should happen, as in all\nprobability it will, that we shall be called upon to correct in some\nrespects our notions as to the Scriptures, and so far to hold views\ndifferent from those of our fathers, we should consider that our\nfathers did not, and could not stand in our circumstances; that the\nknowledge which may call upon us to relinquish some of their opinions,\nwas a knowledge which they had not. Till this knowledge comes to us, let\nus hold our fathers' opinions as they held them; but when it does come,\nit will come by God's will, and to do his work: and that work will,\nassuredly, not be our separation from our father's faith; but if we\nfollow God's guidance humbly and cheerfully, clinging to God the while\nin personal devotion and obedience, we may be made aware of what to them\nwould have been an inexplicable difficulty, and which was, therefore,\nhidden from their knowledge; and yet, \"through the grace of our Lord\nJesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved even as they.\"\n\n\nTHE END.","title":"The Christian Life: Its Course, Its Hindrances, and Its Helps","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":129213}