{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54291/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54291","id":"gutenberg_54291","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54291","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Conscience","Lent -- Prayers and devotions","Sin"],"text":"_CONSCIENCE AND SIN._\n\n\n\n\n Conscience and Sin.\n\n\n DAILY MEDITATIONS FOR LENT,\n\n INCLUDING WEEK-DAYS AND SUNDAYS.\n\n\n BY THE REV.\n\n _S. BARING-GOULD, M.A._,\n\n AUTHOR OF \"THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING,\"\n \"THE VILLAGE PULPIT,\" ETC.\n\n\n London:\n\n SKEFFINGTON & SON, 163, PICCADILLY, W.\n\n 1890.\n\n\n\n\nPreface.\n\n\nIt is advisable that all should have a clear understanding as to the\nnature of Conscience, the dangers to which Conscience is liable, the\nNature of Sin, and the Effects of Sin. Too many people go on easily\nfrom day to day making no spiritual advance, because they do not know\nwhat ails their Consciences, do not even suspect that their Consciences\nare ailing, and so make no effort to escape from their unsatisfactory\ncondition. It is hoped that this little book of meditations may be of\nuse to such.\n\n\n\n\n Contents.\n\n\n PAGE\n Ash Wednesday--\n ON CONSCIENCE 1\n\n First Thursday in Lent--\n THE NATURE OF CONSCIENCE 4\n\n First Friday in Lent--\n THE NATURE OF CONSCIENCE--_continued_ 6\n\n First Saturday in Lent--\n THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONSCIENCE 9\n\n First Sunday in Lent--\n CAUSES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIENCE 12\n\n First Monday in Lent--\n CAUSES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIENCE--_continued_ 15\n\n First Tuesday in Lent--\n ON THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIENCE--_The\n Direct Conscience_ 18\n\n Second Wednesday in Lent--\n THE FALSE CONSCIENCE 21\n\n Second Thursday in Lent--\n THE SCRUPULOUS CONSCIENCE 24\n\n Second Friday in Lent--\n THE RELAXED CONSCIENCE 27\n\n Second Saturday in Lent--\n THE DOUBTFUL CONSCIENCE 30\n\n Second Sunday in Lent--\n ON PRUDENCE 33\n\n Second Monday in Lent--\n ON FORTITUDE 36\n\n Second Tuesday in Lent--\n ON SIN--_The Nature of Sin_ 39\n\n Third Wednesday in Lent--\n THE NATURE OF SIN--_continued_ 42\n\n Third Thursday in Lent--\n THE NATURE OF SIN--_continued_ 45\n\n Third Friday in Lent--\n SOURCES OF SIN 48\n\n Third Saturday in Lent--\n TEMPTATIONS TO SIN 51\n\n Third Sunday in Lent--\n THE GENESIS OF SIN 54\n\n Third Monday in Lent--\n ON ORIGINAL SIN 57\n\n Third Tuesday in Lent--\n THE EVIDENCE FOR ORIGINAL SIN 60\n\n Fourth Wednesday in Lent--\n ACTUAL SIN 63\n\n Fourth Thursday in Lent--\n THE CONDITIONS OF SIN 66\n\n Fourth Friday in Lent--\n CONDITIONS THAT DIMINISH GUILT 69\n\n Fourth Saturday in Lent--\n CONDITIONS THAT AGGRAVATE GUILT 72\n\n Fourth Sunday in Lent--\n ON FREE WILL 75\n\n Fourth Monday in Lent--\n THE DETERMINATION OF THE WILL 78\n\n Fourth Tuesday in Lent--\n PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS 81\n\n Fifth Wednesday in Lent--\n THE GRAVITY OF SIN 83\n\n Fifth Thursday in Lent--\n THE GRAVITY OF SIN--_continued_ 86\n\n Fifth Friday in Lent--\n THE EFFECTS OF SIN 89\n\n Fifth Saturday in Lent--\n THE EFFECTS OF SIN--_continued_ 92\n\n Fifth Sunday in Lent--\n THE DEADLY VICES 95\n\n Fifth Monday in Lent--\n IN WHAT THE VICES ARE ROOTED 98\n\n Fifth Tuesday in Lent--\n PRIDE 101\n\n Sixth Wednesday in Lent--\n AVARICE 104\n\n Sixth Thursday in Lent--\n LUXURY 107\n\n Sixth Friday in Lent--\n ENVY 110\n\n Sixth Saturday in Lent--\n GLUTTONY 113\n\n Palm Sunday--\n ANGER 115\n\n Monday in Holy Week--\n SLOTH 117\n\n Tuesday in Holy Week--\n THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN 120\n\n Wednesday in Holy Week--\n THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 123\n\n Thursday in Holy Week--\n THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S SACRIFICE 125\n\n Good Friday--\n THE EFFECTS OF THE PASSION--_continued_ 128\n\n Easter Eve--\n THE APPLICATION OF THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 131\n\n\n\n\nConscience and Sin.\n\n\n\n\nAsh Wednesday.\n\n_ON CONSCIENCE._\n\n\nGod has created man for a purpose, and that purpose is, that he should\nattain to everlasting blessedness.\n\nGod is good and loving unto all His works. He made the plants and the\nbeasts, and set them ends to accomplish here on earth, but the ends for\nwhich man was made are not to be attained in this life.\n\nThrough the Fall man's mind is darkened, his connexion with God is\nbroken, his sight of the aim to which he should tend is obscured.\nGod has given to him His law as the rule of his actions, that man,\nhearkening to the revealed Will of God, may be guided aright, and\nso accomplish that end for which he was made, and attain finally to\neverlasting blessedness.\n\nEvery act of man that is in conformity with the revealed law of God is\n_good_.\n\nEvery act of man that is contrary to this revealed law of God is _bad_.\n\nEvery act that is in conformity with the law of God is not only\n_actually_ good, but it is _relatively_ good--that is to say, it tends\nto our individual advantage. It is not only good in the sight of God,\nbut it is profitable to our own selves.\n\nSo also is the converse true, that every act done against the law of\nGod is _actually_ and _relatively_ bad; it is bad in the sight of God,\nand it does injury to our own selves.\n\nNow, in order that we may be able to judge whether our acts are in\nconformity with the law of God, He has set in us a faculty which has\nthe office of applying the law of God to our own circumstances; and\nthis faculty tells us whether our acts are in conformity with or\ncontrary to the external law of God. Thus we have the exterior law, and\nthe interior faculty, which we may almost term a law, and this inner\nlaw is called _Conscience_.\n\nII. The revealed law of God, considered in itself and in relation to\nGod, its Author, is holy, inviolable, and inalterable. \"The law of the\nLord is perfect, converting (_or_ restoring) the soul; the testimony\nof the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord\nare right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure,\nenlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for\never; the judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether....\nIn them is Thy servant warned: and in keeping them there is great\nreward.\" (Ps. xix. 7-11.)\n\nBut though the revealed law of God is fixed and immutable, yet when\napplied to the human Conscience it takes different forms, according to\nthe state of the Conscience.\n\nHence it follows that the divine law _ill-applied_, so far from being\na sure rule, may become perverted into a sanction whereby we evade the\nobligations laid on us, and authorize ourselves to commit that which is\nwrong.\n\nWe shall therefore have to consider:--\n\n1. The nature of Conscience.\n\n2. The obligation of obeying Conscience.\n\n3. The different kinds of Conscience.\n\n4. The rules of conduct relative to each sort of Conscience.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFirst Thursday in Lent.\n\n_THE NATURE OF CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. Conscience, which is the gift of God bestowed on all men, Christian\nand heathen, is that practical judgment which points out to us what to\navoid or what to do in any particular emergency that may arise. Just\nas we may know that there are certain laws of nature, and our ready\ncommonsense tells us, when varying circumstances arise, how we are to\nact so that the laws of nature may be to our advantage instead of to\nour overthrow, so is Conscience the commonsense application of the\nindwelling consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong\nto emergencies, as they rise up and demand of us a choice between one\ncourse or another.\n\n2. Conscience has a threefold exercise of its judgment.\n\n(_a_) _Before an action_ takes place, Conscience throws light on the\naction contemplated or proposed, tells us its moral value, and if the\nConscience judges that it is _good_, then it counsels and permits\nthe act. If, however, the Conscience judges that it is bad, then it\ndissuades from, and forbids the act.\n\n(_b_) _During an action_ Conscience is active, and in spite of all the\nclouds of prejudice and of passion that may have risen up, it bears\ntestimony to the true nature of our conduct, it either encourages\nus to carry it through, not to be supine about it, not to abandon it\nbefore it is completed, and so leave it imperfectly accomplished, but\nto carry it through to the end, thoroughly and completely. Or else,\nConscience does not cease from turning us aside from the prosecution of\nthe act which it disapproves; it acts as a drag, a check, and unless\nresisted will completely arrest us in the prosecution of that which it\nesteems to be bad.\n\n(_c_) _After an action_, Conscience recompenses us by the satisfaction\nwe feel, the approval it accords to us for having either accomplished\nwhat it advised, or for having abandoned that conduct which it\ndisapproved. So S. Paul speaks of people being \"a law unto themselves,\"\nshewing \"the work of the law written in their hearts, their Conscience\nbearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else\nexcusing, one another.\" (Rom. ii. 14, 15.) This is the \"testimony of\nthe Conscience,\" \"the answer of the good Conscience\" to which both S.\nPaul and S. Peter appeal.\n\n3. We have seen that Conscience instructs, judges, and rewards or\npunishes; but we must consider further, that Conscience does not\ncontrol the will of man, it merely dictates to the will what is right,\nand warns it as to what is wrong. It uses no constraint. Man's will\nis free; Conscience clears the eyes of the mind, and shews it what\nconduces to welfare, and what to destruction, but it neither impels man\nirresistibly into the former course, nor holds him back forcibly from\ntaking the other. It shows man what is medicine and what is poison, but\nit does not compel him to take one and reject the other, for the will\nof man is absolutely _free_.\n\n\n\n\nFirst Friday in Lent.\n\n_THE NATURE OF CONSCIENCE._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\n1. Conscience, in the order of religious life, is that which the Court\nof Justice is in the order of public life, a court that has been\ninstituted by the legislature to keep discipline and well-being in the\nState, to protect the individual in his person, his property, and his\nrepute.\n\nThus Conscience takes the general laws of God and explains them in\ntheir bearings on our own conduct, and applies them to our several\ncases. Also, Conscience sees to the execution of the law--that it shall\nbe obeyed as well as acknowledged. Also, Conscience punishes every\ninfraction of the law.\n\nIn other words, Conscience is the _interpreter_ of the law of God,\nit is the _judge_ sitting in judgment on us for our observance or\nnon-observance of the law, and it is the _executioner_ carrying out the\nsentence against us. As interpreter, Conscience enlightens us as to the\nrequirements of God, explains to us what is obscure, and smooths the\nway so that our wills, enlightened and ready to act without impediment,\nmay take a direction one way or other.\n\nAn act does not become _just_ or _sinful_ till the will has consented\nto the advice of the Conscience as interpreter, or has turned against\nit and deliberately gone contrary to what it has laid down. Every\nwilful sin is therefore a determinate revolt against God.\n\n2. But Conscience is more than interpreter, judge and executioner; it\nis also our _accuser_ and the _witness_ against us.\n\nAs accuser, it pursues the guilty everywhere, into the innermost\nrecesses of the thoughts.\n\nIt sees clearly, it knows all the circumstances, it declares with\nunhesitating voice both what is the nature of the sin, and what is the\ncondition of the sinner. Thus to the office of accuser it unites that\nof _witness_, presenting itself ever before the accused, with unshaken\ntestimony. It has seen all; it has seen all as it is; and it has\nforgotten none of the circumstances.\n\nAs _judge_, it is enlightened with Divine illumination that pierces\nthrough all the mists of prejudice and clouds of passion, and nothing\nescapes from its vigilance.\n\nAs judge it is also severe, not easy and indifferent, for it has not\nits own law or humour to obey, but the divine law, which it interprets\nand administers.\n\nIt is just, for it stands in that position that it is between God, the\nLawgiver, on one side, and man, who breaks that law, on the other. If\nit be inclined to over-leniency, if it be unjust, then Conscience is\nitself corrupted. But we are not now speaking of Conscience degraded,\ncajoled, bribed, and dishonest, but of the true Conscience as divinely\nillumined and divinely directed to judge aright. And as just and\nenlightened Conscience passes its judgment, and then takes up the\noffice of executioner. \"If,\" says S. Paul, \"we would judge ourselves\nwe should not be judged.\" That is to say, if we suffer our Consciences\nto perform their proper function here in the time of life, to pass\nsentence upon us justly, and execute the sentences passed, then there\nwould be no second judgment for us at the last. That judgment is needed\nonly because so many people refuse to permit Conscience to perform its\ndivinely-ordained work here in this life.\n\nThen consider Conscience as the _executioner_. It punishes man here, to\nwork out his amendment. But if Conscience be not suffered to perform\nits divinely allotted task here, then it will do it in eternity when\nthe time for amendment is over. That is the worm that dies not, that\nthe fire that is never extinguished. Conscience is given to us as\nour executioner here in order to _improve_ us, not to torture us\nunprofitably. It punishes us to work in us _repentance_. These are the\ntwo operations of Conscience as executioner.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFirst Saturday in Lent.\n\n_THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. As Conscience is a gift of God we are responsible to Him for the use\nwe make of it. Conscience is the moral faculty; as the eyes are organs\nof the faculty of sight, the ears of the faculty of hearing, so has\nConscience the faculty of seeing and knowing and distinguishing right\nfrom wrong. As God has given us sight and hearing we exercise these\nfaculties, and, what is more, cultivate them. So, as God has given us\nthe moral faculty, we exercise it, and cultivate it, if we desire to\nfulfil the ends for which God has created us. God gives us eyes to see\nour way, and not strike against walls, and fall into pits. So God has\ngiven us Conscience to see our moral way, and not run into temptations,\nand to avoid moral dangers.\n\n2. As Conscience is that interior judgment which God has planted in us\nto dictate to us what to do, and what to avoid, on special occasions,\nthen, to disobey the voice of Conscience is to disobey the Voice of\nGod. Not only so, but, as Conscience points out to us that a certain\ncourse is one to which duty calls us, and we refuse to follow the\nindication of Conscience, this is a revolt of the will against God,\nand when the will, knowing what is right, deliberately chooses what is\nwrong, it commits mortal sin. It was so with Adam and Eve. They knew\nthe Commandment of God, and wilfully went against His Commandment,\nconsequently they had turned away from their proper end, and turned\nthemselves into the camp of rebels against God.\n\n3. When S. Paul says, \"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,\" he is\nspeaking of the eating of meats offered to idols; and he shows how\nthat Conscience is the rule as to whether a thing is sinful or not.\nIdols are naught, so that the things offered to idols are not actually\npolluted by the oblation; nevertheless, if the Conscience refuses to\nadmit this, and argues that, as a meat has been offered to an idol, the\npartaking of it is participation in idolatry, then to eat of the meat\nthat has been offered brings guilt on the soul. \"He that doubteth is\ndamned if he eat.\" (Rom. xiv. 23.)\n\n4. From this we may draw a practical conclusion that it is always\nwell to follow Conscience, even when Conscience, ill-instructed, may\nbe in error; that if Conscience disapprove of a course of conduct,\nand yet may not understand clearly on what grounds it utters its\ndisapprobation, it is safest, indeed it is right, to obey Conscience,\nand not take advantage of its hesitation.\n\nThat a Conscience may be ill-taught, and therefore in error, that\na Conscience may be perverted, we shall see presently; but what\nappears to be abundantly clear is that it is advisable always to obey\nConscience in all things; but then we must be careful to have the\nConscience well-instructed, clearly illuminated, so that it may not be\nhesitating, confused, and liable to direct us wrongly.\n\n5. When Conscience hesitates, and is doubtful between two courses, it\nis right to seek advice from such as are experienced in the direction\nof Conscience.\n\nMoreover, the Holy Spirit must be invoked to open the eyes of the\nunderstanding, and guide into truth. When hesitation and doubt still\nremain, then the safest course to adopt is that line of conduct which\nis likely to entail most trouble, likely to cost us most, least likely\nto attract notice from others; also, generally, if not always, the\nsimplest and most natural line is the right one; but self-interest, or\na disturbed moral sense, may incline one to take another line that is\nnot absolutely wrong in itself, but is less right because less natural,\nand simple, and direct, and common-place than the other.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFirst Sunday in Lent.\n\n_CAUSES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. Conscience as given by God to man is sound, vigorous, and direct.\nIt sees clearly what the truth is, and distinguishes at once good from\nevil.\n\nWhatever God gives is good, and God gives this faculty of\ndistinguishing between good and evil to man for a purpose, essential\nto man, that he may follow his course, and attain to that end for\nwhich God made him. Therefore, God certainly gave to man, originally,\na sound, sturdy, and clear-seeing Conscience, to be the pilot of his\nvessel, the driver of his chariot, the legislator of his state. That we\nmay,--indeed, that we _must_ acknowledge. God Himself set man in the\nworld to accomplish a certain work, and He furnished him adequately for\nthe fulfilment of the task allotted to him.\n\n2. _But_, man's Conscience is not what it was when God first made\nman; it has been debilitated, it has been vitiated by original sin.\nThe first sin of Adam, and the sin that has issued from that original\nfault, has formed a habit of sin in the human race, that infects,\nweakens, in some cases paralyzes, the Conscience. So that it no longer\nsees as clearly what is right and what is wrong, as at first; it has\nno longer the same unhesitating voice; nor has it the same power\nof influencing the will as at first, for the will itself has become\ndistorted. The unsettlement of Conscience has allowed the will to\nbecome impatient of restraint, and to incline to follow other impulses\nthan that of the moral faculty. The will is also inclined to evil\nthrough the poison of sin which has passed into the nature of all\nmen since the fall, and though, by Baptism, the antecedent guilt of\noriginal sin is put away, yet its deteriorating effects are not all\nremoved. God receives us by Baptism into a state of grace, in which\nstate that which has been marred by the fall can be restored; but\nthe fact of Baptism does not at once restore, it only sets us in a\ncondition in which restoration is possible.\n\n3. There are several causes operating on our Conscience which tend to\nvitiate it:--\n\n(_a_) _Ignorance_ of the Divine Will, and of the law of God for us.\nAdam had a fully-enlightened Conscience, he knew uninstructed what was\nGod's purpose and what was God's Will, but it is not so with us, or\nis so only in a very rudimentary and inadequate manner. We have to be\n_taught_ the Will of God, and to learn His Commandments.\n\nConsequently, it is incumbent on us to strive in every way to remove\nthis ignorance, by reading Scripture, by receiving instruction, and by\nseeking after light by prayer.\n\n(_b_) _Prejudice_, the result of ignorance and pride, or simply of\nignorance and a warped judgment, owing to false instruction. There\ncan be little chance through ignorance of going wrong in the main,\nbroad principles of duty to our neighbours, but imperfect teaching\nor erroneous teaching relative to our duties to God, may well be\nthe cause of our failing to perform, or performing inadequately, or\nperforming wrongly our duties due to Him. Hence we require a sure moral\nguide to expound to us the law of God, and this God has given us in His\nChurch.\n\n(_c_) _Passion_, or concupiscence, which induces the Conscience to\npermit whatever flatters or gratifies the body or the mind. S. Paul\nsays that in his natural state, \"That which I do I allow not; for\nwhat I would that do I not; but what I hate, that do I ... to will is\npresent with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For\nthe good that I would I do not, but the evil that I would not, that\nI do.\" He is here picturing himself in his old, carnal, unregenerate\nstate, but under grace, it is other, there Divine help is given to\nenable the will to submit to the law of God and cast out the domination\nof the carnal appetites.\n\n(_d_) _Lax public opinion_, which sets up a low moral standard, and\nbrings Consciences to sleep, so long as they conform to public opinion,\nand make that the rule _instead of the law of God_. This is a great\nmeans of blunting and deadening Conscience, for it sets up man as a\nsupreme authority in morals in the place of God, it makes the judgments\nof the world override the revealed Will of God.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFirst Monday in Lent.\n\n_CAUSES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIENCE._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\nConscience may _command_, _forbid_, _advise_, _permit_.\n\n(_a_) Conscience, when certain as to the moral right of a course\nof action, utters its peremptory command that it shall be done. We\noften are satisfied with a negative obedience, and consider ourselves\ndischarged from all obligation to render positive obedience. For the\ncommandments are negative. \"Thou shalt not\" do this or that. So, if\nwe abstain from murder, theft, adultery, &c., we are satisfied that\nwe are fulfilling the law. But in the Gospel the negative law, or law\nof prohibition, is not only greatly expanded, but it is turned into a\npositive law. \"Thou shalt love God with all thy heart,\" &c., and \"Thou\nshalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\" It is a bit of self-delusion\nfor anyone to suppose that he is fulfilling the law of his being if\nhe merely abstains from those things prohibited. We have positive\nobligations laid on us, and these positive obligations the enlightened\nand healthy Conscience points out to us. Not only must we abstain from\nanger, but we must cultivate love. Not only must we avoid revenge, but\nwe must do good to them that despitefully use us and persecute us.\nNot only must we avoid gluttony and drunkenness, but we must cultivate\nself-denial.\n\n(_b_) Conscience forbids the commission of those things which are\ncondemned by God's law. As already said, God's law has been expanded\nsince the first imposition of it. \"Ye have heard that it was said\nby them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you, That\nwhosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger\nof the judgment. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,\nThou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, That whosoever\nlooketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her\nalready in his heart.... Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by\nthem of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform\nunto the Lord thine oaths; but I say unto you, Swear not at all.... Ye\nhave heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for\na tooth, but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.... Ye have heard\nthat it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine\nenemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies.... Be ye perfect even as\nyour Father, which is in Heaven, is perfect.\"\n\n(_c_) Conscience advises when there is a choice between two ways, each\ngood, but one more good than the other. In that case it points to the\nhigher and nobler course of action, that which, perhaps, costs more to\nus, is more arduous, and most painful. It does not require us, under\npain of condemnation, to take the higher course, it merely recommends\nit as the superior, and shows that there is no sin incurred by choosing\nthat which is inferior. Thus our Lord gave certain counsels of\nPerfection, but every man was to do as he thought best, in following\nthem or not. So also S. Paul concerning marriage, he says that the\ncondition is holy and unblameable, nevertheless he would advise to\nremain even as himself.\n\n(_d_) Conscience permits the choice of an inferior course when it has\nadvised a higher, when it has weighed all the circumstances; when it\njudges that the will is not strong enough to carry out the performance\nof the higher course, or that the taking of the higher course would\nsubject man to temptations, or involve him in difficulties beyond his\ncapacity of resistance or escape.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFirst Tuesday in Lent.\n\n_ON THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIENCE._\n\n\nI.--THE DIRECT CONSCIENCE.\n\n1. The various causes enumerated have been the occasion of Consciences\nbecoming very various in quality. Of these varieties there are the\nfollowing:\n\n (_a_) The Direct, or Sound Conscience.\n (_b_) The False Conscience.\n (_c_) The Scrupulous Conscience.\n (_d_) The Relaxed Conscience.\n (_e_) The Doubtful Conscience.\n\n2. In the first place let us consider that vigorous and healthy\nConscience which we call a Direct Conscience.\n\nNow God intended all Consciences to be direct, and the object of all\nmoral instruction is to bring crooked Consciences right, and to bring\nignorant Consciences to a knowledge of what is right.\n\nThe direct, sound Conscience is that which we should aim all our lives\nto obtain. And as it is the interior manifestation of the Will of God,\nand an obligation is laid on us to obey it, we must observe what it\ncommands, abstain from what it forbids, and respect what it counsels.\n\nWe must (_a_) use our utmost endeavour to learn our duties aright,\nboth towards God, our neighbours, and ourselves. We owe to God the\nobligations of love, reverence, worship, and obedience. Our duties to\nour neighbours are tolerably plain--the State enforces most of them.\nWe must respect the persons, the property, and the good name of our\nneighbours. Our duties to ourselves are to educate and develop all\nthose faculties, physical, mental, and spiritual, God has put in us, to\nkeep our bodies in temperance, soberness, and chastity; to cultivate\nour reason and our intelligence--the reason so as to be able to form\njust judgments, and the intelligence so as to be able and eager to\nacquire knowledge; to nourish and discipline our souls so that our\nspiritual faculties may be alive to divine things, able to pray, to\nmeditate on God, and be conscious of His Everpresence.\n\n(_b_) We must endeavour to bring under our self-love, which is disposed\nto confuse and lead astray the Conscience by advising such things as\nare convenient and flattering to self, and making them appear right,\nor, at all events, admissible.\n\n(_c_) We must seek to be serious in determining our conduct, to avoid\nall waywardness and caprice, remembering that for whatever we do we\nshall have to give account.\n\n3. We must now consider what are the _means_ whereby we may obtain a\nDirect or sound Conscience. These are many, but a few of those that are\nprincipal and fundamental must suffice.\n\n(_a_) _The study of God's Word_, especially of the words of our Saviour\nJesus Christ, and of His Apostles. Nothing is more calculated to give a\nhealthy and straightforward Conscience than this.\n\n(_b_) _Experience._ We must bring our intelligence to bear on our acts;\nConscience was never meant to be blind instinct, but a bright, fresh,\nenlightened faculty, assisted at every step by the intelligence, and\nthe intelligence will work on the facts of experience, and shew us\nwhere we have been doing what is right, and where we have been going\nwrong.\n\n(_c_) _Hold to first principles._ Self-love is very much disposed to\nlead us into a maze of lines of conduct, and to encourage us to adopt\nthat most easy, most flattering, most profitable to take. It brings up\nside duties, and exaggerates them to obscure broad principles. As a man\nwhen travelling, on coming to cross lanes, ascends a height to get a\nclear idea as to the main line, the direction in which he is going, so\nmust we ever go up to the broad first principles to obtain a general\nsurvey, and follow the direction thus indicated.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Wednesday in Lent.\n\n_THE FALSE CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. That Conscience may be perverted so that it allows those things\nthat are wrong, and forbids those things that are right, is, alas,\nvery true. S. Paul speaks of this. \"Unto them that are defiled and\nunbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and Conscience is\ndefiled. They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him,\nbeing abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.\"\n(Titus i. 15, 16.) And again, he speaks of those whose Consciences are\nseared with a hot iron (1 Tim. iv. 2); and again, in the Epistle to the\nHebrews, he speaks of evil Consciences. Now an evil Conscience can only\nbe such an one as--originally good and sound--has been turned about so\nas to be bad and diseased, allowing such things as it should condemn,\nand condemning such things as it should allow.\n\n2. Now a False Conscience may be either _invincibly_ wrong, or\n_vincibly_ wrong, that is to say, incurably bad, or curable.\n\nIt does not by any means follow that he who follows his Conscience,\ninvincibly false, commits sin. Not only does he not commit sin, but he\nis probably doing what is the best for his spiritual condition under\nthe circumstances.\n\nFor instance, take a man who has been born and brought up in Dissent,\ninto whose mind has been inground the maxim that he must fight against\nthe Church. So long as he does resist the Church by fair means he is\nnot sinning, the Devil cannot count on him as fighting in his army\nagainst the Kingdom of God, as an enrolled soldier of evil. That he\nis not. He is doing right, according to his lights. _But_, supposing\nhe has recourse to illegitimate means of defaming and undermining the\nChurch, such as spreading scandalous stories against its members or\nministers, _knowing them to be false_, then his resistance to Christ's\nkingdom becomes sinful. Prejudice, the result of a false education,\nhas become so enrooted that his error is invincible, except by some\nsupernatural illumination. It was so with Saul. He fought against the\nChurch, but he did it from a right motive. As soon as God miraculously\nconverted him to a knowledge of the truth, then he became an Apostle\nunder that Gospel which he had formerly resisted.\n\n3. Now let us consider the case of a Conscience in a condition of\n_vincible_ error. As a vincible condition of error is one from which\nnearly any man may free himself if he takes the pains, he sins if he\nfollows a false Conscience, without making any effort to set it right.\nThe error being voluntary does not excuse the act. Through indolence,\nor indifference, or prejudice, he does not attempt to give himself a\ndirect and sound Conscience, and he sins in following his Conscience\nwhen he commits something wrong, or omits something right, _not_\nbecause he is following his Conscience, but because he has made no\nendeavour to educate his Conscience to discriminate rightly.\n\nAs this is the case, we see how important it is for us to avoid\n_narrowness_, and to cultivate broad and liberal views. Narrowness is\nignorance, and it petrifies the Conscience into a perverted direction.\nEveryone is morally bound to endeavour to the utmost of his power and\nopportunities to lay aside error, and to rectify his Conscience. This\nhe can do by examining every question presented to him in all its\naspects, for till he has so done, he cannot be sure that his view is\nthe right one.\n\nAgain, he must pray for guidance. The Holy Spirit is given to the\nChurch to guide all the members of Christ into truth. Lastly, he must\nsubmit his opinion to that of the holy, undivided Church, which is the\npillar and ground of the truth.\n\n4. It sometimes happens that in spite of efforts made to attain to a\nright Conscience, it remains in the same distorted and false condition\nas before. Either the mental faculties are insufficient to rectify it,\nthe judgment is cramped, and habit or prejudice has obtained too strong\na hold to be overcome. In such a case the Conscience is invincibly\nwrong, but nevertheless, its promptings must be obeyed. God, Who sees\nall things, and is full of mercy, will make allowances, only _not_ for\ndisobeying the mandate of Conscience.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Thursday in Lent.\n\n_THE SCRUPULOUS CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. The Scrupulous Conscience is a niggling Conscience that vexes itself\nabout inconsiderable matters, and magnifies trifles into things of\nimportance.\n\nThe Scrupulous Conscience is that which has no sense of proportion.\nIn a large number of cases it is vastly particular over matters of\nindifference, and supremely indifferent about matters of importance. It\nis a Conscience that never goes back to first principles.\n\nThis was the sort of Conscience possessed by the Scribes and Pharisees,\nwho tithed mint, and anise, and cummin, and passed over the weightier\nmatters of the law. (Matt. xxiii. 23.) By Scrupulous Conscience is not\nmeant a tender Conscience, but an itchy one. It is one that is ever\nsuffering from vain apprehension, and regards things harmless and licit\nas though they were forbidden.\n\nA sound and direct Conscience is necessarily a tender one. It sees what\nis right and what is wrong, all in due proportion; and shrinks from\nwhat is evil as from a serpent, and also is never at rest if it does\nnot fulfil those obligations which it sees are enjoined. A Scrupulous\nConscience is one that sees everything topsy-turvy, it magnifies\ntrifles, and passes by without seeing them the more plain and obvious\nduties. It is influenced, not by its _knowledge_, but by its _fears_,\nand this allows it to strain at gnats and swallow camels.\n\nThe Scrupulous Conscience often causes quite as much scandal as the\nerroneous Conscience, for people see it making much of small matters,\nand are led to despise or disregard Conscience as an unreliable guide.\n\n2. That a Scrupulous Conscience may be brought to a right perception\nof the relative proportions of duties, it must, or at all events, it\nis most advisable that it should be put under directions by a wise\nConfessor, who will labour to give it robustness, will strive to drag\nit out of its confusion, and set it well aloft, where it may be able\nto survey the whole map of the county of duty, and orientate itself\naccordingly.\n\nA right Conscience is also a tender one, but the converse is by no\nmeans true, that a tender Conscience is always a right one.\n\n3. A Scrupulous Conscience is often a companion to extraordinary\nself-conceit. To bring it into healthy condition, and remove its\ndistortion of view, humility must be very resolutely practised. Even\nwhere there is not self-conceit, there is generally self-centredness,\nthe mind is for ever turned in on self, and occupies itself with\nprobing all its tender places, and fretting it into sores. The best, if\nnot the only remedy for this is the forcible disengagement of the mind\nfrom the consideration of self, and rough, resolute, and protracted\nlabour for others.\n\nConsciences are sometimes scrupulous about the misdeeds, real or\nimaginary, of others, and inert in judging of their own condition.\nCruel acts of injustice are done under the plea of obedience to\nConscience--this is due to the undue scrupulosity of the Conscience\nwhich considers _only itself_; on the other hand, great lack of\ncharity, courtesy, and consideration for the feelings of others is\nshewn by a Scrupulous Conscience, which concerning itself with _others\nonly_, disregards the broad principles of right action as relates to\nitself.\n\n4. In directing a Scrupulous Conscience aright, care must be taken,\nnot only to give that Conscience a clear and healthy view of the\ncomparative proportions of duties, and the comparative sinfulness of\nthings forbidden, and to bid it distinguish between those things that\nare duties, and those which are optional; those things that are sins,\nand those which are harmless; but also, it must be bidden to take into\nconsideration its responsibilities to other persons as well as to\nitself, so that under the plea of following Conscience some gross piece\nof injustice or rudeness may not be committed.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Friday in Lent.\n\n_THE RELAXED CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. The Relaxed Conscience is that sluggish and careless Conscience\nwhich allows itself to be ruled or influenced in its determinations by\nthe voice of public opinion, or by the supposed interests of the person\npresent or future.\n\nIn the matter of religion idolatry is mortally sinful, for it is the\nmaking by man of a religion for himself instead of accepting one from\nGod. A man is as truly an idolater when he fashions for himself a\nsect, as when he makes a graven image. No man has any right to invent\ndoctrines, and establish a ministry of himself. Such religion is _from\nbelow_, whereas the divine religion is a revelation _from above_.\n\nPrecisely so is it with regard to morality. No man must seek for the\nmoral sanction in the voice of public opinion, or in anything _below_.\nHe must seek it _above_, in the revealed Will of God.\n\nThus a Relaxed Conscience, that is governed by the public voice, by the\npress, by private personal interest, dethrones God from His place as\nLawgiver, and sets up public opinion or personal interest in His room.\nIt does not seek its sanction in Heaven, but on earth.\n\nAs men make to themselves gods to worship, and sects and doctrines, so\ndo men make to themselves laws of ethics. He who worships and believes\nin such gods and such doctrines as suit him is an idolater, or a\nheretic, and he who obeys only such moral laws as suit him is every\nwhit as much in sin.\n\n2. Now very few persons making any profession of religion deliberately\nrelax their Consciences, and submit them to the earth-born law of right\nand wrong. They far more commonly allow it unconsciously to modify\ntheir views of right and wrong to suit their own convenience. They take\nGod's Commandments, and pare and shape till they have fitted them to\ntheir low ideas, and accommodated them to their practice.\n\nThis is not done all at once, and openly, but is a gradual process\nwhich, unless guarded against, will deaden the Conscience till its\nvoice is no longer heard proclaiming any other law than the commonplace\nmaxims of mundane morality. This relaxed Conscience, being in error,\nmore or less voluntarily permitted, can no longer serve as a guide\nto conduct. On the slightest motives it is ready to permit what is\nnot really allowed by God's law, and to regard mortal sins as venial\noffences.\n\n3. The Scrupulous Conscience exaggerated trifles; made mountains out of\nmolehills. The Relaxed Conscience minimises great things, and reduces\nmountains to molehills.\n\n4. There is but a sole _remedy_ for a Relaxed Conscience, and that is\nto replace God on His throne as Supreme Lawgiver, and to bow down to\nand worship Him alone. Instead of our taking His law, and trimming\nit to fit public opinion and self-interest, we must make His Will\nparamount, and test everything by that. Every act must be brought to,\nand tried by the measure of the Sanctuary, and what falls short must\nbe rejected. In such a matter there can be no compromise between God\nand mammon; God must reign, not supreme only, but _alone_, as the\nLawgiver, to Whom Conscience looks up, and Conscience must answer His\nvoice, and not the voice of the world, and turn to that for direction.\nNo man can serve two masters; either he will hate the one and love\nthe other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.\nObserve this injunction of Christ. He speaks of _masters_ giving orders\nto their servants, and of obedience to command in the servants. The\nConscience is servant; it _must_ obey God or the world; it cannot serve\nboth. In the effort to serve both it becomes relaxed and useless.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Saturday in Lent.\n\n_THE DOUBTFUL CONSCIENCE._\n\n\n1. The Doubtful or perplexed Conscience is that Conscience which\ncannot form a resolve. It suspends judgment on the right or wrong of\nan action, either because it thinks that as much is to be said on\none side as on the other, or else it suspends judgment through lack\nof illumination, it does not see what it ought to do. Or again, it\nsuspends judgment because it is not sure of the existence, or the\nobligation of a law commanding or forbidding some action.\n\nThis is the condition spoken of by S. James. \"He that wavereth is like\na wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed. Let not that man\nthink that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double-minded man\nis unstable in all his ways.\"\n\nThe right Conscience is certain. It sees clearly and judges decidedly.\nSo does the false Conscience see and judge, though falsely. But this\nConscience is paralyzed in judgment, it sees so many reasons on one\nside and so many on the other, that it falls into despair, and does\nnothing because of timorousness, lest it should judge awrong.\n\n2. The Conscience can hardly be doubtful about the main laws of God.\nIt is in their application to man's action that uncertainty lies. And\nit is inevitable that some uncertainty should exist, for man is put in\nseveral relations, and has duties in each that sometimes conflict. He\nis a member of the State, the Church, the family, and the social body\nto which he belongs. He has duties to those above him and to those\nbelow him, and it cannot be that these duties should always lie in\nparallel lines. He must sometimes exercise his judgment, and decide\nwhich among several duties he will observe and which pretermit.\n\n3. Conscience should never be suffered to remain in suspense, and in\nsuspense be left unacted upon, for Conscience is given us to spur us to\naction, not to excuse us from acting, and so sanction inertness. Unless\nConscience be acted upon, it becomes debilitated.\n\nWe must act. We will now see how in doubtful cases one ought to act.\n\n4. An opinion presents itself before our minds to be adjudged on. The\nintelligence, in face of two contradictory courses of conduct, has to\ndetermine which is right and is to be followed, and which is wrong and\nhas to be avoided.\n\n(_a_) An opinion may be _slightly probable_, when it is founded on\nmotives that are insufficient to determine the assent of a prudent man.\n\n(_b_) An opinion may be _probable_, when the motives impelling towards\nit are strong, but there is a slight probability in favour of the\ncontrary opinion.\n\n(_c_) An opinion may be _certain_, when all reasonable doubt is\nexcluded, through the contrary opinion being altogether improbable.\n\nWhen the opinion is certain, then it must be accepted and followed.\nWhen, however, it is only probable, or slightly probable, then the\njudgment must be called in to pronounce on the _probable consequences_.\nHitherto we have considered the eye as turned to God as the sole author\nof law; but in such cases as there is no certainty, only probability,\nthe Conscience is assisted by _prudence_, which is the action of the\nreason judging of the probable consequences of an act.\n\nWhen the moral sanction is certain, prudence is not called in to alter\nthe conduct essentially, only that it may order it so as to be carried\nout advisably; but when an opinion is probable, and not certain, then\nthe eye of the reason may be, and ought to be, directed to the future\nconsequences, and the judgment formed, not only on the antecedent\nprobabilities, but also on the probable consequences, good or evil. As\nprudence can only judge future probabilities, it may not countermand\nwhat has certain sanction. Very often the consideration of probable\nconsequences assist us in determining the right or wrong of an act,\nwhich antecedently is not certain.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Sunday in Lent.\n\n_ON PRUDENCE._\n\n\n1. God wills not only that we should consider His law as the rule of\nour conduct, but also that we should exercise Prudence in the obedience\nwe render to His law.\n\nPrudence is a faculty given to man by God, a scintillation of His\nforeknowledge whereby man is able, in a measure, to look into the\nfuture, and it is a useful handmaid to judgment.\n\nPrudence is called in (_a_) for the determining of a line of conduct,\nand (_b_) for determining the manner in which a determined line of\nconduct shall be carried out. When our Lord exhorts, \"Be ye wise as\nserpents, and harmless as doves,\" He exhorts to Prudence. \"Whatsoever\nthou takest in hand, remember the end.\" (Eccles. vii. 36.)\n\nIn the first place, Prudence is called in for determining a line of\nconduct. When the moral sanction is indubitable then it can alter\nnothing; all it can do is to advise and direct as to the carrying out\nof what is determined on so as not to jar against the rights of others.\n\nBut when there is only probability on our side, then Prudence is\ninvoked to say what the consequences that will result from such an\naction are likely to be, good or bad; and so may exercise a very\nvaluable function in advising or dissuading.\n\nPrudence looks to the near future, and to the remote future. It\nconsiders what are likely to be the consequences in this world,\nand whether the course of conduct will receive the sanction of the\nall-seeing, all-just Judge at the Last Day. \"The wisdom of the\nprudent,\" said Solomon, \"is to understand his way.\" That is, as\nConscience looks back to God for its justification, so does Prudence\nlook forward to the course taken in obedience to the dictates of\nConscience, and smoothes it.\n\nPrudence is generally a moderator in the execution of duty. That\nexecution might be harsh, and hurtful, but Prudence wisely softens and\nsimplifies, abates prejudice, and commends the course of Conscience to\nthe approval of others.\n\n2. We will now consider some practical rules for conduct in such cases\nas the Conscience does not give a certain decision, but sees that\ndifferent opinions may be probable, more or less, and is in hesitation\nwhich to follow.\n\n(_a_) One good rule is to follow that course which is most natural;\nwhat is strained and has the semblance of being excentric is probably\none flattering to self-esteem, and had better be avoided.\n\n(_b_) Another good rule is to follow that course which is safest, in\nwhich there is least likelihood of disturbing others, injuring or\nannoying them. Also, which is least riskful to ourselves, in health,\nsubstance, or reputation.\n\n3. It must not be forgotten that it is quite possible so to carry out\na _right_ purpose as to do _wrong_ in the execution. Having decided on\nwhat is right, foresight and judgment are required to determine _in\nwhat manner_ and _at what time_ it is to be carried out. Prudence\noften shews us that the same result may be attained by the exercise of\npatience as by an impulsive and precipitous execution, and that the act\nperformed cautiously and judiciously will do good, whereas if done at\nonce in a headlong manner it may effect mischief. Also it shews that\nthere are more ways in which the same thing may be done, and that there\nis a right way and a wrong way, a way that is advisable, and a way that\nis mischievous and to be dissuaded from. We are warned not to do evil\nthat good may come, but people forget that a considerable amount of\nevil is done by those who do good in a wrong manner.\n\n4. Prudence is but another name for _wisdom_, and wisdom is one of the\ngifts of the Holy Spirit. By understanding we see God's law, by wisdom\nwe know how to carry it out.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Monday in Lent.\n\n_ON FORTITUDE._\n\n\n1. We have seen that Conscience, enlightened by Divine Revelation and\nassisted by Understanding, obtains a clear knowledge of God's Will, and\nits application to the several conditions in which man is placed in his\ncourse through life.\n\nWe have seen how that it is not sufficient for man to _know what_ is to\nbe done, he must also _know how_ it is to be done, and this is where\nPrudence is needed.\n\nBut Prudence is not enough. Prudence may be so timorous as to dissuade\nfrom action altogether, and may neutralise the effect of the promptings\nof Conscience. Prudence sees dangers, and it may magnify dangers. \"The\nslothful man,\" says Solomon, \"saith, There is a lion in the way, a lion\nis in the streets,\" and so does not go abroad. Now Prudence counsels\na man not to go out of doors when there actually _is_ a lion there,\nbut Timidity keeps him at home _on the chance_ of a lion being there.\nIt is the function of Prudence to foresee dangers, take account of\nobstructions and difficulties, and if Prudence stood alone it might\ninduce to inertness, and spiritual sluggishness.\n\n2. Therefore God gives us a supplementary counter-balancing grace,\nwhich is that _Fortitude_, or courage, to carry us with resolute, bold\nhearts through the fulfilment of duty. When we know well our duty, then\nwe prudently consider which is the best way of executing it, and then\nfortitude steps in to nerve us to the full and exact completion of our\nduty.\n\nMany an one, having seen the right way, invokes all his fortitude\nto assist him in the carrying out of what is right, regardless of\nthe advice of Prudence, and many an one, when Prudence indicates\ndifficulties, and advises delay, falls into neglect. Each is necessary,\nand each is equally necessary.\n\n3. Fortitude is a gift of God; it is an attribute of the Holy Ghost,\nthe Spirit, not only of Counsel, but also of Strength.\n\nWe need Divine strength to _undertake_, strength to _carry through_,\nstrength to _bear the consequences_ of doing what is right.\n\n(_a_) _In the first place_, having obtained a clear sight of what is\nGod's Will, and also having prudently considered what is the best\nway of fulfilling it, we require strength to brace our resolution\nto undertake the task set us, that is to say, to make up our minds\nstrenuously to do that which God commands, and to do it in the way most\nadvisable.\n\n(_b_) _In the second place_, we require strength to persevere and not\nto become discouraged, and leave off imperfectly done that which we see\nit is our duty to do. It is often better not to begin, than to leave\noff what has been undertaken unaccomplished.\n\n(_c_) _In the third place_, we require strength to endure the\nconsequences of our act. If we have done that which is right, we cannot\nbe sure that it will not entail on us loss, ridicule, disappointment.\nBut we must then invoke the aid of the Divine gift of Fortitude to\nstrengthen us to endure cheerfully such consequences as come of what\nwe have done, putting all our trust in God, and leaving all further\ncare to God.\n\n4. It must not be supposed that the Divine gift of Fortitude is one\nand the same thing as human _obstinacy_. Many men are obstinate in\ncarrying out their resolutions, and in carrying them out in their own\nway. They have strong wills. But the Divine grace is different; it is\nallied to humility, and human obstinacy is tied up with self-conceit.\nIt is therefore not difficult to distinguish the one from the other. A\nlowly spirit may be strong in the Lord to fulfil resolutely the Will\nof God, but an obstinate spirit is a self-opinionated one that follows\nnot God's Will, but its own. We must be careful in examining our own\nselves, and seeing if there is strong resolution in us, if it is strong\nin the right way, and with the right sort of strength.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSecond Tuesday in Lent.\n\n_ON SIN._\n\n\nTHE NATURE OF SIN.\n\n1. We come now to the consideration of Sin. Sin is either:--\n\n(_a_) The revolt of the created will against the Divine Will; or\n\n(_b_) A voluntary violation of a commandment of God.\n\n2. God is the Supreme Lord of all creation, and Author of our being.\nHis Will should be the absolute law of all created beings. But as He\nmade men and angels in the plenitude of freedom, He gave them wills,\nwills wholly free, and He set before them His law as the way of\nhappiness, revealing to angels and men that so long as they conformed\ntheir wills to His Will they would be happy. Men and angels, though\ncreated free, were for all that dependent on God; but certain angels,\nwith Satan at their head, revolted--they set their wills in opposition\nto the Will of God, from dependence they aimed at independence.\n\nThe fall of Adam and Eve was different; instead of a complete revolt of\nthe will against the Will of God, it was an inclination away from God's\nWill in one particular, a transgression of a commandment, not an act of\nrebellion.\n\nThe revolt of the will against God is a deliberate resistance to\nthe just and holy laws which He has laid down, and it attacks the\nimmutable order He has appointed as the relation between Himself and\nHis creatures. It is also a wilful attempt to change the destiny of the\ncreature.\n\nThus Satan rebelled through pride, dissatisfied with what God had\nordained as to his place in the hierarchy of created intelligences. He\ndesired to be higher or different from what he was. His rebellion was\nagainst the supremacy of God.\n\n3. Now it is but exceptional to find man wilfully, knowing what he\nis about, rise up in open and deliberate rebellion against God;\nnevertheless, such revolt is found to be among men, though it may be\nhoped not always, or not often _conscious_ revolt. Those rebel against\nGod who--\n\n(_a_) Profess _Atheism_. They deny His existence, His law, His\nprovidence. God has put in every conscience a witness to His being,\nto His law, to His providence, and to profess Atheism is not only to\nreject revelation, but to resist the inner testimony of the Conscience.\nIt is incipient, encouraged, and becomes habitual, till the whole\nattitude of the inner nature is one of antagonism to God.\n\n(_b_) Who resist _God's moral law_. Men may be ready to admit that\nthere is a God in Heaven, but as His law limits and controls their\nliberty, they strive against the restraints He imposes on them, and\nsubmit only to such laws as they are forced by the law of the land, or\nby social society to observe. They cast God out of their consciences.\n\n(_c_) Who resist _God's truth_. Men may accept the fact that God exists\nin Heaven, and that He has imposed on men a moral law, but they reject\nHis revelation regarding the facts of the Faith, the articles of the\nCreed, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Commission\nto the Church, the Sacraments. All wilful resistance to the faith as\ntaught by the Church, the depository of Revelation, is thus a rebellion\nagainst God.\n\n(_d_) Who resist _God's Church_. The Church is the kingdom of God on\nearth, and all schism is a revolt against His authority as committed\nto His Church, and in as far as it is _conscious_ and deliberate, is\nrebellion against God, different only in degree to that of Satan and\nhis apostate angels in Heaven. Where this is in ignorance, it is of\ncourse otherwise. God will always consider the imperfection of man's\nknowledge, and if a man resists His truth, His moral law, His Church,\nthrough invincible ignorance, He will excuse such rebellion.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Wednesday in Lent.\n\n_THE NATURE OF SIN._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\n1. We have considered the first and most terrible Sin, that of\nthe Revolt of the creature against the Creator. We might indeed\nconsider all transgression as a rebellion of the will against the\nDivine Will, but it is not always so. It is not a rebellion of the\nwill altogether, and consciously against God as Ruler, but it is a\ntransgression of a single command, either through stress of temptation\nor through carelessness. It may, however, be deliberate and wilful, a\ntransgression of one law, but without the intention of stepping into\nabsolute and acknowledged hostility to God.\n\n2. We sin against God's commandment, either--\n\n(_a_) By _thought_, when we voluntarily and with deliberation consider,\nand take pleasure in considering, those things which we know to be\nforbidden by God. The thought of evil is not necessarily sinful,\nnor is the emotion of pleasure that follows on the thought, _unless\nharboured_. We cannot avoid the knowledge of evil, nor can we help the\nsense of pleasure which is due to the corruption of our nature through\noriginal sin, but when the _will consents_ to the thought of evil,\ntakes it up and gives it a lodgment in the heart, then it becomes Sin.\n\n(_b_) By _desire_, when, knowing that a certain course of conduct,\nor a certain act is contrary to the Will of God, we feel a desire,\nand encourage that desire to take the course, to do the act which we\nknow is wrong. We sin by wilfully harbouring an evil thought, and by\nwilfully harbouring an evil wish. For instance, we may desire that\nsomeone who has injured us may meet with some accident, or not recover\nfrom some sickness. The thought of such a thing must at once be put\naside, lest it should breed the wish that so it might be.\n\n(_c_) By _speech_, when knowingly words are uttered either (1) contrary\nto truth; (2) contrary to charity; (3) contrary to religion.\n\n1. God is truth, and loveth truth, and all falsehood is abominable\nin His sight. As children of God we must seek ever to be open and\ntruthful, avoiding evasions of the truth, and perversions of the truth,\nand denials of the truth. That is to say, avoiding the obligation of\nspeaking the truth exactly when it is required; twisting the truth\nabout so as to alter its appearance and give it a look other than it\nshould have--a dressing up of the truth, denial of the truth, knowing\nwhat we are doing. Satan is a liar, and the father of lies.\n\n2. Contrary to charity. We sin when we speak words that are unkind,\neven if they be true. We have no right to reveal what we know, and\nto publish abroad the infirmities, the errors, the faults of our\nneighbours, unless we are called upon to do so for some justifiable\ncause. All backbiting, slandering, evil-speaking, is inspired by the\nEvil One, who stirs up strife, whereas God is the God of unity.\n\n3. Contrary to religion. We sin when we speak against God's revealed\ntruth and His Church. But we can also sin by holding our tongues when\nwe ought to speak. When we hear error proclaimed we are bound to stand\nup for the truth; not to do so is to neglect a plain duty, for God\nhas made us all missionaries of His Gospel, soldiers in His army, to\nadvance His kingdom by example and by precept, and we are bound by our\nallegiance to Him to use our best endeavours to dissipate error and\nremove prejudice.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Thursday in Lent.\n\n_THE NATURE OF SIN._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\n1. We have seen how that we can sin against God's Commandments, by\nthought, and by word. We can also sin against Him by act, and by\nomission. We daily say, \"We have offended against Thy holy laws. We\nhave left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have\ndone those things which we ought not to have done.\"\n\nWe will therefore now consider sins of _commission_ and sins of\n_omission_.\n\n2. We commit sins of the first sort, that is, we are guilty of _sins\nof commission_, when we do anything, when we adopt any course of\nconduct, knowing it to be forbidden by God. It seems hardly necessary\nto say much about such sins, as they are obvious to all. It is perhaps\nonly necessary to say that we are guilty of sins of commission, when\nwe transgress any of the Commandments of God _in the spirit_, as\nwell as in the letter. Our Lord shews us that the Commandments are\nexpanded under the Gospel to include much more than appears on the\nsurface. Consequently any little act of unkindness, any trifling\nwith sensuality, any over-indulgence in eating or drinking, any\ndisrespectful treatment of those who are in authority, are sins of\ncommission, though they are not against the written words of the law.\nIt is therefore right for us to consider what is implied by the written\nlaw, and to measure our conduct and weigh our acts by the spirit of\ncharity, by first principles of justice, and then it will be found that\nwe have allowed ourselves many things which are contrary to the spirit\nof the Gospel. \"Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing\nwhich he alloweth.\" (Rom. xiv. 22.)\n\n3. We use much less circumspection about _sins of omission_. It is\ntherefore advisable to consider them more carefully.\n\nWe sin by omission when we omit to do those things which\n\n(_a_) We are commanded by the Law of God.\n\n(_b_) Our Consciences advise.\n\n(_c_) We are commanded to do by those set in authority over us.\n\n(_d_) We are required to do by the State, or social law.\n\n(_a_) Now it must never be forgotten that our duties as Christians are\nnot merely _negative_, to abstain from this and not to do that, but\nare _positive_, to advance the Kingdom of God, and work out our own\nsalvation. Our Lord, in the parable of the unprofitable servant who hid\nhis treasure, shews us this. We must try to discover what active work\nin His Kingdom He has ordained for us to accomplish, and then do it\nwith all our might. No man has any right to live in idleness. He must\ndo something either for God, or for his fellow men.\n\n(_b_) We must obey the promptings of our Conscience. If Conscience\nurges, and we neglect to obey it, we are neglecting the voice of God.\n\n(_c_) We are bound to obey and execute the commands of those set over\nus, parents, guardians, masters. If in authority, and they require us\nto do something, then we cannot omit doing what is ordered without\nincurring sin; for all authority devolves from God, and we are\nresponsible to God for the way in which we fulfil our duties under\nthose set over us. We must obey _readily_, _cheerfully_, and _exactly_.\n\n(_d_) We are members of the State, and to the laws of the State we\nare morally bound to give obedience; all organizations, the family,\nsociety, the State, are divine in origin, and we cannot revolt against\nany one of these without lesion of the Spirit of Unity which makes all\nsociety possible, and that is the Divine Spirit. It is only when a\nsocial or a State law is clearly contrary to revealed Divine law, that\ndisobedience is permissible.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Friday in Lent.\n\n_SOURCES OF SIN._\n\n\n1. We have now considered the Nature of Sin, and shewn that it is\nessentially a revolt against God, either complete and conscious against\nGod Himself, or particular, against some commandment of God.\n\nWe will now see whence Sin arises.\n\nThere are _interior_ and _exterior_ sources of Sin.\n\n2. We will take, first, the interior sources of Sin. These are\nthree--(_a_) Culpable ignorance; (_b_) Human fragility; (_c_) Malice.\n\n3. _Culpable ignorance._ A man is guilty when he commits an act\nwhich is sinful, or omits to fulfil a duty, not knowing that the act\nis sinful, or that the duty is obligatory, through ignorance, but\nthrough ignorance which is voluntary, because he has neglected to\nlearn what is his duty and what are the commandments of God, or else,\nbecause having learnt, he has allowed his knowledge to lapse, and\nhe no longer keeps in mind what he once learnt; or else, because by\ntrifling with his conscience he has so confused it that it no longer\nspeaks distinctly and emphatically, telling him what to do and what to\navoid. Consequently, we are bound to use our best endeavours to learn\nexactly what is the Will of God, and having learnt to keep in mind\nwhat has been acquired, and so promptly, and without prevarication, to\nobey our consciences that they may not become to us uncertain in their\nutterances.\n\nWe may be, and we shall be, excused if we have sinned through\ninvoluntary ignorance, but not if we have neglected the opportunities\nplaced in our way of learning our duty.\n\n4. _Human frailty._ The weakness of our mortal nature is prone to let\nus be drawn away into evil, either through--\n\n(_a_) The violence of temptation; or\n\n(_b_) The weakness of our resolution; or\n\n(_c_) The force of bad habit; or\n\n(_d_) The warmth and concupiscence of imagination.\n\n5. _Temptation is strong._ Temptations are from without and from\nwithin. It is necessary to recognize the fact that we are being tempted\nin order that we may be prepared to resist. Half the sins fallen into\nare committed before we have realized that we are in temptation.\nTherefore we pray that we may not be led into temptation.\n\n_Our resolutions are weak._ Some wills are much weaker than others.\nNothing can be a greater blessing than to have a strong will rightly\ndirected. A strong will perverted to evil is a great evil; but so\nalso, and only a little less so, is to have a feeble will devoid of\nresolution. This is what most have, poor, crippled, infirm wills, and\nwe must strive after God's strengthening grace to brace and nerve\nthese limp wills, so that we may have the will to do after God's good\npleasure. Half the sins, indeed, more than half the sins, committed\nare committed, not from deliberate wickedness of the will, but from\ninfirmity of the will, which has not the strength to stand against\ntemptation.\n\n_The force of bad habits_ is very great. We say that habit becomes a\nsecond nature. If we have allowed a bad habit to grow, it requires\ngreat resolution and Divine grace to enable us to cast it off.\n\n_The warmth of imagination_ which unfolds pictures before the mind\nencouraging to evil. Imagination is a faculty that may be of great\nservice to us, but it is also one that may lead us into danger. Many\na sin is committed out of curiosity. It was curiosity that led to the\nfirst transgression.\n\n6. _Malice._ The sin committed out of malice is the most condemnable\nof all, for it issues from a _will_ that is corrupted and resolved on\ndisobedience. In temptation, through our frailty that leads to fall,\nthe will is overcome; it may wish the good, but be powerless to take\nthe right course; but where the will is set determinately on evil,\nthere the sin is of the worst kind conceivable. This is the condition\nof Satan, one of continuous and complete revolt against God out of\nhatred of what is good.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Saturday in Lent.\n\n_TEMPTATIONS TO SIN._\n\n\n1. There are three exterior sources whence temptation arises. As we\nhave seen, there are springs of temptation in our own selves, but we\nare also subjected to temptation from without. There are, (_a_) The\nDevil who seeks our destruction; (_b_) Created beings that seek to draw\nus from God to make of them our ends; (_c_) The world that endeavours\nto bring us down to obedience to its low tone of morality instead of\nfollowing the high course as indicated by revelation.\n\n(_a_) The devil walketh about as a roaring lion, says S. Peter, seeking\nwhom he may devour. We do not know for certain the reasons why Satan so\ndiligently seeks man's destruction, but they are probably _jealousy_,\nbecause man is created and called to occupy those places in Heaven\nwhich he and his apostate host have lost through their rebellion.\nThey are filled with envy and spite against us, that we should attain\nto eternal blessedness, whereas they have lost it, and are doomed to\neternal misery. Another cause is certainly _malice_, hatred against\nGod; Satan and his host know what God has designed for man, and know\nwhat God has done for man, and because they have set their wills in\nantagonism against God, they ever seek out of malignant hatred to mar\nGod's work and undo His ends. A thoroughly bad man takes a malicious\ndelight in making others as bad as himself, and the devils feel this\nsame inclination in a heightened degree. Another cause is the _pride_\nof the evil spirits. They are in warfare against God, and they feel a\nsense of triumph when they are able through man's free will to obtain\nthe fall and degradation of one of God's noblest creatures. It flatters\ntheir pride to be able to gain something like a victory over God.\n\n(_b_) Created beings endeavour to draw us from God, to fix our\nambitions, our affections, on them. Or rather it may be said that we\nare tempted to forget our true end and aim, allured by the beauty and\nattractiveness of the creatures of God, to set our hearts and minds on\nthem instead of on the Creator. We are surrounded by God's good things\nof creation, but we must look up through nature to God Himself, not let\nnature arrest our attention. So with human beings, we should love them\nindeed, but not let love of them take off our hearts from the supreme\nlove of all, that should be given to God. We are guilty of loving the\ncreature above the Creator whenever we allow our love for men, or for\nthings of this world, to make us give up religious duties, cease to\ncare for things spiritual, and to engross our thoughts.\n\n(_c_) The world endeavours to draw away our allegiance from God to it.\nThe world has formed its own moral code, an easy one, indulgent to our\ncorrupt nature, it glosses over faults, and permits laxity. It does\nnot enforce self-denial, but, on the other hand, encourages indulgence\nand extravagance. A very great number of people take public opinion\nas their rule of life, and so long as they conform their lives to\nwhat society expects and demands, regard themselves as in the way of\nsalvation. Now the social code is well enough as far as it goes, but it\nis not intended to be the supreme code. The law of God is that which\nwe must obey first, and that always points out to us a higher life, a\npurer life, and an unselfish one, whereas the world insists on a life\nwhich is selfish, and without any noble aims.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Sunday in Lent.\n\n_THE GENESIS OF SIN._\n\n\n1. We will now consider the way in which Sin is engendered, and takes\nupon it form and guilt. As already said, the knowledge of Sin is not\nin itself sinful. Nor is the sensation of pleasure that arises on the\noccurrence of a sinful suggestion necessarily so. Sin does not spring\ninto deadly reality till the will has given its consent.\n\n2. The _intelligence_ proposes the evil thought to the will; it\ncounsels the will to agree to some sensible good, which it sees, to the\ndisobedience of a divine law, the existence of which it recognizes.\n\nThat is to say, we see that a course of action lies open to us, which,\nas we admit is forbidden by God's law, yet this course of action will,\nwe feel assured, bring to us some great advantage. For instance, a\nmanufacturer sees how that, by the adulteration of his goods in a\ncertain manner, not liable to detection, he may be able to save himself\nseveral thousand pounds, which sum he will net as a profit. Having\nseen his opportunity, he either accepts it or he rejects it; he turns\nthe suggestion of his mind into a sin, or an occasion of victory over\ntemptation.\n\n3. The _imagination_ represents in lively colours to the will the\ncharms, the delights of some action which the Conscience recognizes as\nforbidden. Not only so, but the imagination exaggerates these charms,\nthese delights, so as to form a most alluring picture which the will\nhas a difficulty in rejecting.\n\n4. _Ignorance_ conceals from the will the inherent evil of a course of\naction proposed. A Conscience that is not keenly alert to duty, and\nhas not been disciplined in right, sees a course of conduct before it,\nand sees that it will conduce to great advantage, but is too blunt or\ngross to be able to distinguish any right or wrong in it. It acts in\nobedience to the impulse to gain a promising temporal end, without\nperception of the true nature of the act. This often happens. We do not\nhave our eyes opened to what we have done till after the thing is done,\nand then, and then only, discover how wrongly we have acted.\n\n5. _Bad habit_ encourages the will to consent to evil by recalling the\npleasure or advantages obtained by past yielding to temptation, and\ninvites it to a continuance. Moreover bad habit blunts Conscience,\nand removes all sharpness of perception as to the right or wrong of\nan act. Bad habits are easily acquired, and when once they get hold\nof a man are eradicated with difficulty. Everyone therefore should be\nwatchful against the beginnings of a habit that may be bad, that is\nnot assuredly good, for what may be bad will in the long-run become\nactually bad. Bad habit grows through carelessness, and a constant\nwatch against its rooting itself and ramifying must be maintained.\n\n6. We have seen now how that the will is urged to consent to evil,\neither through the intelligence advising it, or the imagination\nalluring to it, or through ignorance, blinding to its nature, or\nthrough bad habit, which has weakened the power of resistance in the\nwill. Now Sin only begins when the will has given consent. S. James\nsays, \"Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and\nenticed. Then, when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and\nsin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.\" (S. James i. 14, 15.)\nFirst the _suggestion_ of Sin comes from the Intelligence, or from\nthe imagination. Then the _will consents_ to the suggestion. Sin is\nthen in conception. Then it is carried forth into _execution_. Sin is\naccomplished. It has become a fatal fact. Lastly comes the judgment on\nsin, the result that follows sin as a shadow follows a body--Death.\n\"The wages of sin are death.\" \"By sin came death.\"\n\nWe must therefore keep a watchful guard over the thoughts and\nimaginations, and let the will be under the absolute control of the\nConscience, so that it may not give consent to the evil suggestion. If\nit has given consent, sin has begun to live; it may, however, again be\nchecked before it proceeds to act.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Monday in Lent.\n\n_ON ORIGINAL SIN._\n\n\n1. The subject for meditation to-day shall be the nature and effects\nof Original Sin, which is that Sin committed by our first parents,\nand of which we inherit, _not the guilt of the act of Sin_, but the\n_consequences of the act_.\n\nGod is just, and God would not condemn to everlasting death men because\ntheir first parents had broken His commandment. But the consequences of\nAdam's sin passed on all his descendants. By his disobedience he had\ndisturbed the Divine Order, lost his original innocence, introduced a\ndislocation into his nature. We will now consider what the results of\nthat transgression were.\n\n(_a_) It disturbed the direct relation of the soul to God. It obscured\nits vision of God, and all certainty as to God's Nature and Will. This\nwe see from the history of mankind. We find that the vision of God by\nthe soul was so clouded that men fell into ignorance of God, and into\nfalse conceptions relative to the Nature of God and the Will of God.\nAll the wanderings of the human mind in idolatries and mythologies are\nthe result of the loss of clear perception of God's Nature. Not only\nso, but the mistakes men made relative to the law of God, so that they\ndid many things that were evil, believing them to be good, was the\nresult of the obscuration of the spiritual vision so that it could not\nsee what was the Will of God.\n\nAgain, all the errors and uncertainties into which men fell relative to\nthe future state was due to the clouding of the spiritual eye, so that\nit could no longer see what was the Purpose of God relative to man.\n\n(_b_) The intelligence was darkened. Adam and Eve saw what was\nbefore them, Death the consequence of Transgression, but allowed\nthemselves to be confused by the pleadings of the serpent, disputing\nthe consequences. Ever since, a confusion of the intelligence as to\nconsequences resulting from acts has existed in men; a lack of sharp\nand decisive vision as to the relation of effect to cause, as to the\nrelation of result to act.\n\nThe confusion and obfuscation of the intelligence is removed to a large\nextent by education, but only by such education as broadens the mind. A\nnarrow, illiberal education may do much harm by throwing partial lights\nwhich tend the rather to confuse.\n\n(_c_) The weakening of the human will. The will is not only inherently\nweakened by having given way to evil, but it is continuously weakened\nby the uncertainty it is in how to decide, by the darkening of the\nunderstanding, so that duties are not always clear, nor consequences\ncertain. The will to do what is right is by no means strong, since Adam\nand Eve turned their will away from God; the human will has acquired a\nbent that inclines it not always to follow the right.\n\n(_d_) And the undue elevation of sensuality tends to deceive the will\nand induce it to follow the appetites of the body instead of the\npromptings of the understanding. Adam and Eve went against Reason when\nthey partook of the fruit of the tree to satisfy a carnal curiosity\nand gratify an animal appetite. Ever since then carnal curiosity and\nanimal appetite have obtained a dominating power in man, composed of\nbody, soul, and mind, quite out of proportion to what was purposed.\nThis undue elevation of Sensuality leads man to seek the gratification\nof those appetites he shares with the beasts, at the expense of his\nintellectual and spiritual powers.\n\n(_e_) One other result of the Fall affects man's body. God made man to\nbe healthy, strong and happy. By his turning away from God, the source\nof life, strength and blessedness, he became liable to decay, sickness,\npain, sorrow, and death.\n\n2. We see, then, that the fall of man has led to the disturbance of\nman's nature, and it has left man in such a condition that of himself\nhe is unable to attain to the knowledge of God and His Will, and unable\nto fulfil God's Will even when He knows it. Consequently he fell more\nor less completely under the dominion of the Evil One, who prompted to\nerror, and to that of Sensuality, which promised happiness to man in\nthe pursuit of his inferior appetites.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThird Tuesday in Lent.\n\n_THE EVIDENCE FOR ORIGINAL SIN._\n\n\n1. The existence of Original Sin in man is proved to us in the first\nplace by our very constitution. We have only to look into our own\nselves to discern its presence. S. Paul, speaking of himself in his\ncondition under the law, says, \"When we were in the flesh, the motions\nof sin ... did work in our members.\" (Rom. vii. 5.) \"That which I do,\nI allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that\ndo I.... To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is\ngood, I find not. For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil\nwhich I would not, that I do.... I delight in the law of God after the\ninward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the\nlaw of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin that\nis in my members.\" Who does not know this truth by experience? Who has\nnot felt the conflict; realized that there are different and opposing\nelements in his nature? There is a mixture of dignity and meanness,\nof nobility and baseness, of the knowledge of what is right and a\nlove of what is evil, in all men. They have but to look steadily into\nthemselves to see that it is so.\n\n2. Scripture affirms the existence of Original Sin. \"Man born of a\nwoman is of few days and full of trouble ... who can bring a clean\nthing out of an unclean? Not one.\" (Job xiv. 1, 4.) \"Behold, I was\nshapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me.\" (Ps. li.\n5.) \"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so\ndeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.\" (Rom. v. 12.)\n\n3. The Church has always taught the existence of Original Sin, and\nthe Sacrament of Baptism, ever ministered, is a witness to this, for\nBaptism is the means whereby men pass out of a condition of natural\nincapacity to fulfil God's law into a state of grace in which they are\nable to do those things God has commanded. The Sacrament of Baptism\nwas instituted as a corrective to Original Sin, to remedy the defects\nproduced in man by his filiation from Adam.\n\nBy nature--that nature degraded and corrupted through the fall--we can\ndo no good thing; but by Baptism we pass into the Kingdom of Grace,\nand therein are enabled to stand, are strengthened, enlightened, and\ncleansed.\n\n4. Reason, moreover, assures us of the existence of Original Sin. In\nthe first place, we know that God is good, and we cannot understand\nthat a good God should have created man, the noblest of the works of\ncreation, to suffering and misery. We feel assured, if we recognize\nGod as good and loving to all His works, that He did not make man to\nbe what he is, full of infirmities, ignorances, narrownesses, liable\nto suffering intensely acute, to continuous trouble, to decay, to\ndiseases most painful, distressful in every way, loathsome, and finally\nto complete dissolution. Again, we have but to look at history, to\nread the daily records of crime in the papers, to see that there is a\nfrightful amount of evil among men, and always has existed, and this\ncannot proceed from a good God.\n\nWe must either deny the goodness of God, and say that man has\nbeen created by a capricious Deity--a mixture of benevolence and\nmalevolence, of goodness and of evil--_or else_, we must allow that\nGod created men good, but that His purpose has been hindered, and\npartially made ineffectual through the introduction into man's nature\nof something that was alien to it at first. The introduction of this\nalien element can only be attributable to man himself, who, having a\n_free-will_, could turn away from the course ordained for Him by His\nCreator, could deflect from the direct line, could bend from the way of\nhappiness to that of misery.\n\n5. A state of Original Sin is not a condition of guilt for act done,\nbut a condition of impotency or partial impotency towards good;\nand Baptism affords supernatural assistance towards the undoing of\nthose bad effects produced by the Fall, and transmitted through all\ngenerations. It places man in such a condition that little by little\nhe can recover himself, and be restored to the original condition of\ninnocence, vigour, and vitality of the first man as he left the hands\nof God.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Wednesday in Lent.\n\n_ACTUAL SIN._\n\n\n1. Having seen what Original Sin is, we come now to Actual Sin.\nOriginal Sin, we have seen, was a partial paralysis of man's better\nnature, a confusion of his faculties, and a rendering him incapable of,\nby himself, attaining a recovery. It is a passive state of inability\ntowards good, and of subjection to evil. Actual Sin is quite other--it\nconsists in sinning voluntarily.\n\nOriginal Sin is a hereditary condition; Actual Sin is personal.\nOriginal Sin is involuntary; Actual Sin is voluntary. Original Sin is a\nstate; Actual Sin is an act which throws us into a state of sin.\n\nA guilty act carries with it guilt to the soul of him who commits the\nact, but it may also entail a consequent state on others. For instance,\na father by his vices may so corrupt his blood that his children have\nsickly constitutions. They inherit the _consequences_, but not the\n_guilt_. This is analogous to Original Sin, the state we are in through\nthe fault of Adam. Or, again, a father may squander an ancestral\nestate. His children are born in penury, and are incapable of ever\nrecovering what their father has lost. His is the guilt, theirs the\ncondition into which his act has thrown them.\n\n2. Actual Sin is of various degrees of guilt; according to the state\nof knowledge of him who commits it, or according to the heinousness\nof the sin committed, or according to the amount of deliberation\nand wilfulness with which it is committed. Where there is complete\nignorance of the nature of the act, so long as that ignorance is not\nvoluntary, there the guilt of the act is not mortal, though the act\nitself may be a grave offence. So also the manner in which the will\ngives its consent materially aggravates or lessens the guilt of a\nsin. If the act be known beforehand to be forbidden, and yet the will\nconsents to it, it violates Conscience, and the guilt is grave; but\nwhen a transgression is the result of unpremeditation, a surprise, and\nthe will has not had time given it to act, there the guilt is slight.\n\nAnd once more, there is a difference in heinousness in sins. It is\nwrong to strike another violently; it is worse to strike with purpose\nso as to permanently injure.\n\n3. Sin is a violation of the Commandments of God, and as such is\nincited to either by the Devil, who is the enemy of God, or by the\ncarnal nature which desires its own ends regardless of what conduces to\nthe exaltation of the superior nature, or by the world, which desires\nto lower the general moral tone of men to a vulgar and easy level. It\nis therefore a dereliction from God's Law, a turning away from God's\nOrder, a choosing of what is either against His Will, or not wholly\nin accordance with His Will. It is therefore always evil, and always\ndeserves punishment, and always leads to suffering.\n\nGod has set before man, as the end of his existence, the attainment\nof perfect happiness, by complete though gradual recovery from the\neffects of the Fall. Every sin is a slipping back into the condition\nfrom which we ought to strive ever to escape, if it be not, what it is\nin some cases, a going down into an even worse condition, by making our\noriginal sinful condition an excuse for becoming actually sinful.\n\n4. For the avoidance of sin we need supernatural aid, and this is\nDivine Grace. By Baptism we are placed in the Spiritual Realm, in\nwhich we are furnished with sufficient help to enable us to resist\nall temptations, overcome all bad habits, discipline all inclinations\ntill they take the direction of good in place of evil, and obtain\na clear illumination of our intellect, so that we can see, and see\ndistinctly, what is God's Will for us. Moreover, we obtain the faculty\nof judging proportions, and of estimating what is near and transitory\nat its proper value, as also what is far off and enduring. Naturally we\nover-estimate what is close before us and is temporal, and hardly see\nat all and value what is far off and eternal, but by the gift of Divine\nGrace our spiritual vision is enabled to judge distances and judge\nvalues correctly.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Thursday in Lent.\n\n_THE CONDITIONS OF SIN._\n\n\n1. Every sin is an act done by man endowed with free will, in the\nexercise of his freedom, and with consciousness what he is about.\nThat is to say, certain conditions are requisite in order that an act\nmay be really sinful, and these conditions are, a knowledge of what\nis proposed to be done, liberty to do it or to forbear, and the will\nengaged to accomplish what is proposed.\n\n2. _Knowledge._ An act is only culpable when he who commits it knows\nwhat he is about, knows the character of his act, or has at all events\na strong suspicion that the act is contrary to the law of God. This is\nwhat S. Paul repeatedly urges. \"The law entered, that the offence might\nabound.\" \"The motions of sin, which were by the law, did work in our\nmembers, to bring forth fruit unto death.\" \"I had not known sin, but by\nthe law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt\nnot covet.\" \"Without the law sin was dead.\" The measure of sinfulness\nis largely the knowledge possessed by the doer of the deed. To such\nan extent is this the case, that S. Paul supposes the case of one who\ncommits an act that is in itself harmless, but it becomes sin to him\nbecause he thinks it is forbidden.\n\nA corollary to this is that the degree to which an act is sinful\ndepends largely on the degree of our knowledge. For instance, to one\nwho knows that it is his duty to God to attend public worship every\nSunday it is sinful if he, without excuse, stays away; but the sin is\nby no means as great to him who has never been taught his duty to God,\nand thinks that going to Divine worship is optional, and is merely\nfor the sake of hearing a sermon, which very probably, and perhaps\nreasonably, he thinks he can do without.\n\n3. _Liberty._ An act is only culpable when the person who does the act\nis free to do it, or to refrain from doing it. It is only when the will\nis free that it can act so as to make what is done guilty or innocent.\n\nTake the converse. A man may speak the truth, or give a large sum in\ncharity, because he is forced to do this, not because he wishes to do\nit. He acts against his intention and desire. The act is good, but\nthere is no merit in what he has done, for it is done under constraint.\nSo it is possible that an act in itself wrong may be done under such\noverwhelming compulsion that all exercise of freedom and determination\nis impossible. If any freedom remains, if there be any chance of escape\nfrom doing what we know to be wrong, then it is, to us, more or less\nsinful, if we yield to force.\n\n4. _Will._ This is the main faculty that determines the sinfulness\nof an act. If we will to do an act which is a violation of a\ncommandment of God, or which may give occasion to the violation, then\nthe consequence is mortal sin. An act done by a child before it has\nattained the use of its reason is not sinful, nor is an act done by\nanyone without the exercise of the power of determination sinful. Thus\nhomicide is not murder. We may take what belongs to another person in\nignorance that it belongs to another, or also, without the wish of\ndefrauding another, and in either case the act is not sin.\n\nThe reason why eternal darkness and separation from God is possible to\ndevils and man is that the will may become so turned away from God, and\nso diametrically opposed to Him, that the faintest stirring of a wish\nto return to obedience is absent. If any lost spirit could at any time\nrepent, its salvation would be possible. Eternal death is due to the\nfact that men may become so alienated from the life that is in them, so\nfull of hatred of good, that they cannot turn to God, and hereafter,\nwhen they view the consequences, may still never _will_ the return, but\npersevere in their rebellion and hatred of what is good.\n\nIt is consequently of the utmost importance that we should watch over\nour wills, and strive to bring them to perfect conformity with the\nWill of God, for in that alone lies our security, in that alone true\nblessedness.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Friday in Lent.\n\n_CONDITIONS THAT DIMINISH GUILT._\n\n\n1. We have seen that in order that sin may be deadly, it must have\nbeen committed with knowledge of what was proposed, in the exercise of\nliberty to act or not to act, and with deliberate determination of the\nwill.\n\nNow it is obvious that the same act may be very much less guilty in one\nman than in another according as these faculties exist in more or less\nactivity.\n\nWe will now consider some of the more simple extenuating causes that\nmay make a sin really to be--to the soul of him who has committed it--a\nfault only.\n\n(_a_) _Excusable ignorance._ As has been pointed out, a man is only\nguilty of mortal sin, when he is ignorant that the act is forbidden.\nS. Paul says, \"As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish\nwithout law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by\nthe law.\" And our Lord Himself, \"That servant which knew his Lord's\nwill, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,\nshall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did commit\nthings worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto\nwhomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom\nmen have committed much, of him they will ask the more.\" (Luke xiii.\n47, 48.) But the ignorance must be excusable, that is to say, he who is\nin ignorance must not be in _wilful_ ignorance.\n\n(_b_) _Fear._ In certain circumstances the mind may be in such a state\nof alarm and disturbance that its power of judgment is paralyzed, and\nthe will is overborne by the fear which has become dominant. It is said\nof those who are out of their minds that they are not accountable for\ntheir actions, and there are cases in which terror is so acute, and so\novermastering, that a man or woman ceases to be morally responsible for\nwhat he or she does.\n\n(_c_) _Compulsion._ As already shewn, liberty is essential to qualify\nan act as either culpable or not culpable to the person who is the\nagent. An act may be in itself wrong, but the guilt entailed on the\nsoul of him who does it depends on whether he be a free agent or not.\nFor instance, it often happened that a martyr was forced to offer\nincense to idols. The grains were thrust into his hand, and the hand\nwas extended by violence over the fire of the altar. But as the soul of\nthe martyr never yielded consent, no guilt of apostasy attached to it.\n\n(_d_) _Inadvertence_, or excusable want of attention. It does often\nhappen that a wrong act is done before we really know what we are\nabout. It is done without premeditation. We are of course bound to be\never on our guard against temptation; but that sin into which we have\nfallen _unintentionally_ does not carry with it the same guilt to the\nsoul as if it had been done with deliberation. \"Be not high-minded, but\nfear,\" says the Apostle. The Evil One is ever on the watch to entrap\nus when unprepared into sin. And though a sin committed inadvertently\nmay not be mortally sinful, yet it may, and probably will, carry with\nit the temporal consequences just the same as if it had been committed\ndeliberately. \"Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation.\" S. Peter\ndenied his Master partly through fear, partly through inadvertence,\nhe was caught off his guard. We stand often without any sight of or\nsuspicion of the temptation on the brink of which we are, and with\na touch we are over. As we are repeatedly warned to caution and\nwatchfulness, such inadvertence does not wholly excuse us. We are\n_bound_ to be ever prepared, nevertheless the nature of man is weak and\nfrail.\n\n2. Let no man seek to excuse himself for his sins. The remarks made\nare calculated to comfort the distressed and agonized soul that\nfinds itself fallen into sin, which it hates, and is not intended to\nencourage a comfortable assurance of peace when there is no peace, and\nto engage to lack of watchfulness, and want of contrition.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Saturday in Lent.\n\n_CONDITIONS THAT AGGRAVATE GUILT._\n\n\nAs there are certain conditions that remove the gravity of guilt\nattaching to mortal sin, so, on the other hand, are there certain\nconditions that aggravate the culpability of an act against God's will,\nconditions that may cause a sin, not in itself heinous, to become\ndeadly in its consequences to the soul. These conditions shall now\nbe taken into consideration. They are four, just as there were four\nconditions that lessened guilt.\n\nThe conditions are these:--\n\n(_a_) _An error of Conscience_, which leads the person committing\nan act, to believe that an act is forbidden by God, which really is\nharmless or allowable, and he nevertheless commits the act wilfully.\nBelieving a course to be sinful, he takes it deliberately. The course\nmay not be in itself wrong, but in that he thinks it wrong, and\nwilfully elects to take it, believing that he is going against the\nWill of God, he sins mortally. This we can see at once, for it is a\ndeliberate revolt of the will against what is believed to be God's\nWill, and it is the setting of the will in opposition to God which is\nthe condition that makes sin to be mortal.\n\n(_b_) _The evil of the end proposed._ That is to say, if anyone allows\nhimself to do an act in itself harmless, or permissible, in order to\nattain to an evil end, then the act, though in itself harmless and\npermissible, becomes exceeding sinful. The end proposed poisons the\nwhole course of conduct pursued. In the former case a harmless act is\nmade deadly in its consequences through antecedent ignorance, in this\ncase through subsequent evil. In both cases there is revolt of the\nwill against God. He who desires an evil of any kind, knowing that it\nis evil, _i.e._, that it is against the law of God, and deliberately\ncompasses that end, makes every step he takes in the course whereby\nhe reaches that end, however indifferent they may be in themselves,\ntaken by themselves, to be mortally sinful to him. This is clear,\nbecause throughout he is acting with a will in opposition, and in known\nopposition, to the Will of God.\n\n(_c_) _Contempt of the law or Lawgiver._ An act done by man in\ndisregard of God's law, with indifference to what God wills, is in\nitself mortally sinful. No man has any right to disregard God's\nlaw, which is the rule the Creator has impressed on His intelligent\ncreatures, and no man may be indifferent to God, Who has given His\nlaw as the rule of well-being for the creatures He has made. To put\nGod out of the thoughts, and to act as if there were no God Who has\nexpressed His Will is practical Atheism. With the lips he who so acts\nmay indeed confess Him but in acts deny Him. Neglect and disregard\nof God may, indeed, be due to circumstances over which man has no\ncontrol--defective teaching in childhood, for instance--but of this we\nare not speaking, but of such cases where a man has been taught about\nGod and His Will, and deliberately puts such considerations aside, and\ndoes not allow them to influence his conduct.\n\n(_d_) _The circumstances of the case._ An act, harmless or permissible\nin itself, may yet be sinful, and gravely sinful, if the circumstances\nbe such as to make it the occasion of evil; for instance, if it lead\non to the formation of a bad habit; or if it be the occasion of grave\nscandal. Such was the case of eating meat offered to idols. In itself\nit was innocent, but he who ate meat so offered before weak brethren,\nknowing that he was causing injury to their consciences, thereby\ndefiled his own conscience. In the former case we have an act made\nsinful through disregard of the Lawgiver, in this through disregard of\nthe consequences to ourselves or to others.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Sunday in Lent.\n\n_ON FREE WILL._\n\n\n1. We have seen throughout how that the exercise of the Will is that\nwhich gives character to an act, stamping on it its mark of sin or\nrighteousness, in as far as it affects the individual Conscience.\n\nWe will now look at the Human Will, and consider how it operates.\n\nAn object is presented to it, and it can determine with relation to it\nin three different ways.\n\n(_a_) It can _consent_ to it. If the object be evil, and it consent to\nit, then it becomes guilty, it sins. This is what has been insisted on\nthroughout, that the Will of man is the determining quality making a\nthing to be sinful or not to the individual Conscience.\n\nThe imagination or the intelligence presents to the Will a certain\npicture, proposes a certain act, and the Conscience then pronounces\non the right or wrong of what is presented and proposed. Then the\nWill forms its decision. If it consents to what is suggested, and\nthe Conscience has informed it that this is _wrong_, then it makes a\ndeliberate act of separation from and revolt against God.\n\n(_b_) It can _resist_, it can absolutely refuse to take the course\nindicated, when the Conscience has pointed out that the course is\ncontrary to what God has ordered. When the Will thus deliberately\nresists the evil suggestion, it not only does not sin, but it performs\na good and meritorious act. It has taken the side of God, and such an\nact of positive adhesion to God is rewarded by God, and strengthens the\nWill in a right course.\n\nWhen we say that an act of adhesion to God is meritorious, we do not\nmean that any act of man unassisted by grace can deserve a reward, but\nthat God will reward man if he, by an exercise of free will, ranges\nhimself on His side, just as surely as He will punish man if he, by an\nexercise of his free will, ranges himself against Him.\n\nThe devils, by an exercise of free will, rebelled, and lost happiness.\nThe good angels, by an exercise of free will, remained faithful, and\ndeserved and retained Beatitude. So man has to decide. God's grace does\nnot constrain, it encourages and helps, but it forces no man to take\nthe course that leads to life. The determination lies with man, and\nthat determination must be made by an exercise of the Will.\n\n(_c_) It may remain _passive_, neither consenting nor resisting. Now,\nthe Will of man is given to him as a determining power, and no man has\nany right to bury this talent. Free Will is the best gift God gave\nto man, and though it has been weakened by his fall, yet it can be\nbrought again to full vigour and energy by the exercise of it in one\ndirection or the other. The rudder is given to the ship that by means\nthereof it may be steered. So the Will is given to man that thereby\nhe may be directed. No good steersman will desert the wheel and let\nthe vessel drive before the wind and become a prey to the waves, and\nno man may leave the determination of his course to accident, without\nmoral deterioration. We must strive to brace the Will so as to decide\naccording to judgment and Conscience, and every such decision gives\ntone and force to the Will.\n\n2. There are certain cases in which it is advisable to _avoid_ instead\nof _resisting_ temptation. When we know that circumstances are strong\nagainst us, and we know that our Wills have not acquired that nerve and\nindependence which will enable us manfully and persistently to resist,\nthen the judgment advises avoidance of the danger.\n\nThis is especially the case in all such temptations as affect modesty.\nWe must never run into temptation, and where we are doubtful, and the\nway of avoidance is possible, there we do well to take it.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Monday in Lent.\n\n_THE DETERMINATION OF THE WILL._\n\n\nWe have seen now what the Free Will in man can do. It can choose, or\nrefuse, or remain inert.\n\nNow we will go a little further, and see how it decides. It can aim\ndirectly or indirectly at a certain end.\n\n(_a_) The Will can be _direct_ when it decides for that which is evil,\n_because it is evil_.\n\nOr when it decides for that which is evil, _because of the pleasure or\nprofit_ accruing therefrom.\n\nNaturally, the first of these decisions is the worst; it implies a\nradical hostility of the will to God. It is the condition into which\nthe will of the devils has fallen through persevering opposition to\nGod. They love evil for its own sake. The transgression of God's Law\naffords them no gratification, the prospect of transgression holds out\nto them nothing but a deepening of their woe; nevertheless, their wills\nhave become so set in opposition that they hate what is good, and love\nwhat is evil, simply because good is good and evil is evil. The more\nany man suffers his will to deflect from the Will of God, and he allows\nhimself consciously to choose evil, the nearer he approaches to this\ncondition of rooted and hopeless antagonism to God, and separation\nfrom the source of life, light, and happiness.\n\nThe second condition is the usual one, in which man chooses evil\nbecause of the gratification to his senses, or his pride, that the\ncommission of a forbidden act, or the adoption of a forbidden course,\nor the dereliction of a commanded duty, will entail on him, or that he\nfancies it will entail. He does not love evil because it is evil, but\nhe loves pleasure or what flatters his pride, and he accepts the evil\nbecause of what it promises.\n\n(_b_) The Will can be indirect in its pursuit of evil when (1) It does\nevil that good may come, _or_ (2) When it does good that evil may come.\n\nIn _the first case_, the Will proposes to itself to attain to a good\nend, but it allows a certain course which it admits to be against God's\nLaw, in the hopes that the lesser evil will result in the greater good.\nThus, a lie is told to gain the conversion of a heretic. It is good\nto draw a man from heresy into the way of true religion, but to use a\nforbidden means to do this is to sin. Or an act of injustice may be\ndone for the sake of doing some great and manifest good. This is not\npermissible. Not only must the end aimed at be good, but the means by\nwhich it is attained must be good also. Better leave the end unreached\nthan use illegitimate methods for obtaining it.\n\nIn _the second case_, the Will proposes to itself to attain a bad\nend, and to reach that uses good and legitimate means. For instance,\nthe truth is spoken when we know that by speaking the truth we shall\nrouse violent passions and produce discord. We do not mean that the\ntruth should be perverted into untruth, but that it may be withheld.\nWe are not bound _always_ to say everything we know, but to maintain\na prudent reserve. If A. has said something harsh of B., we are not\nbound to tell B. what A. has said of him. It may be perfectly true\nwhat we retail, but if we do retail it we know it will be productive\nof discord. So it is quite possible for a person with an ill\nintention to use quite legitimate means--that is, means in themselves\nunobjectionable--to attain an evil end. Self-deception may, and does\nsometimes, blind people to the badness of the object they seek, by\nrepresenting to them that they have done nothing wrong in the way by\nwhich they have worked to reach it.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFourth Tuesday in Lent.\n\n_PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS._\n\n\nFrom what has been said about the Will of man and the Nature of Sin,\nsome plain and Practical Conclusions may be drawn.\n\n1. Those evil thoughts that pass in us, to which we give no consent\ndirect or indirect, are not sinful to us, entail on us no guilt. That\nis to say, we are not responsible for evil thoughts, images unseemly,\nprofane, uncharitable, for distractions in prayer, dreams of the night,\nunless we arrest them and give them our consent. Living in this evil\nworld, surrounded by evil, we cannot avoid the knowledge of evil; that\nknowledge may, however, pass over the mind darkening momentarily, but\nnot staining, like the shadow of a cloud on a hill side. So also with\nregard to wandering thoughts and unsuitable ideas presenting themselves\nto us in prayer, we cannot help them, but if we allow our thoughts to\nwander without effort to recollect them and harbour the unsuitable\nideas, then they become sinful.\n\n2. Sin consists in the assent given by the will to the suggestion of\nevil. That has been sufficiently insisted upon, and need not have\nanything further said thereon in this place.\n\n3. If certain evil effects are foreseen, more or less distinctly, as\nlikely to ensue, if we follow a certain line of conduct, and there\nbe no reasonable motive to force us to adopt that line of conduct,\nand those evil effects ensue, then we are guilty of them. It lay in\nthe power of our will to avoid that line of conduct which brought us\ninto peril of doing those things which are evil, and, foreseeing the\nrisk, we took the perilous course. This is the case of rushing into\ntemptation. For instance, we foresee that association with certain\nindividuals will lead to a lowering of our religious fervour, a laxity\nof view with regard to our moral obligations, and, nevertheless, we\ncultivate their society, then we are guilty of the coldness that ensues\nin our religion and the laxity that occurs in our moral look-out.\n\nOr, again, if we see that by going to a certain place we are running\ngreat risk of committing a certain sin, and, without any real\nnecessity, we go to that place, and fall under temptation, then we are\nguilty, as if we had deliberately committed the sin. Or, again, if we\nsee that by spending much time, and thought, and money on dress, we are\nbecoming liable to vanity, and we go on lavishing attentions on our\npersonal appearance, so that we do become conceited and vain, then we\nare guilty of the sin of vanity. We have wilfully chosen that course\nwhich leads to vanity.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Wednesday in Lent.\n\n_THE GRAVITY OF SIN._\n\n\nWe come now to consider why Sin is in itself so grave. There are\nseveral reasons.\n\n1. It is a revolt against God. 2. It is a setting at naught of the Work\nof Christ. 3. It neutralises the Work of the Holy Ghost. 4. It is an\nattack on Society.\n\n1. _It is a revolt against God._ In the first place because God is the\nsupreme authority, the Lord over all Creation, and that creature which\nsets up its own will against His, is thereby a rebel. Man regards, may\nbe, the laws as unjust, or as tyrannical, that God has imposed on him;\nunjust because they limit his freedom, or are beyond his power to obey;\ntyrannical because they oppose the desires of his heart and animal\nappetites.\n\nIn the next place it shows a disregard or disbelief in God's promises\nand warnings, it is therefore grave because it shows indifference to\nGod's goodness and to His severity. In the first case it robs God of\nthe obedience due to Him, in the second case it robs Him of the respect\ndue to Him.\n\nThen, again, Sin is a revolt against God, as it makes man seek another\nend than that which God has ordained. God would have man seek Him,\nmake Him the object of all His aspirations, all His efforts. By Sin\na creature is substituted in the place of God, and man labours for,\nthinks of, cares for this created object, a person, or a thing, and\nmakes of it an idol. It turns a man away from God as the object of life\nand its energies to a perishable and unworthy end.\n\nOnce more, Sin is a revolt against God, inasmuch as it robs God of\nthe love, fear, reverence, worship, the thoughts of the mind, and the\naffections of the heart, that properly belong to Him.\n\nSin therefore is a state of rebellion against God, in that it refuses\nto acknowledge Him as king, and in that it sets up another sovereign in\nHis place. It takes away that obedience, homage, love that should have\nbeen given to God, and gives it to something or someone else.\n\n2. _It sets at naught the Work of Christ._ Christ came down on earth,\ntaking human nature upon Him to break the power of Sin, and enable man\nto overcome it. Therefore He made atonement for Sin, and provided means\nof grace whereby man might be enabled to conquer it. But Sin is the\nmaking in vain the Atonement. \"If they fall away ... they crucify to\nthemselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.\" (Heb.\nvi. 6.) It prevents the sacrifice of Christ having any efficacy on the\nsoul, to cleanse it from the past and to strengthen it for the future.\n\n3. _It neutralises the Work of the Holy Ghost._ Our Lord poured down\nthe Holy Spirit on His Church to be the sanctification of all the\nmembers thereof. This Divine Spirit prompts to good, and helps to\nperform what is good. It \"prevents and follows us,\" _i.e._, it goes\nbefore, stirring up the will to do, and follows assisting in the\nperformance. The Divine Spirit endeavours to purify us, illumine us,\nand strengthen us. But Sin stains, darkens, weakens us, consequently\nevery sin wilfully indulged in, undoes the work of Sanctification which\nshould be daily going on in us, forming in us the likeness to the\nperfect pattern of Jesus Christ.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Thursday in Lent.\n\n_THE GRAVITY OF SIN._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\n1. We have spoken of Sin as a revolt against God, as undoing the\nwork of Jesus Christ, and neutralising the Holy Ghost's work of\nSanctification. We will now consider it as _an attack on Society_.\n\nGod is the Author of peace and concord, \"He maketh men to be of one\nmind in an house.\" It is due to Him that Society is possible. He made\nman not only to be an individual with freedom, but to be a member of a\ncommunity. The most elementary type of community is the Family, then\ncomes the State, and lastly, the Church. Such unions can only be formed\nand maintained by a certain amount of sacrifice of individual freedom,\nand by mutual forbearance and compromise. Now as we see that barbarism,\npure and simple, is the state of man who lives merely as an individual,\nand as we may be quite sure that God never intended man to be a savage,\nwe may conclude, from reason, that God wills that man should unite with\nhis fellow-men into societies, and therefore that He sanctions and\nblesses the surrenders and compromises that make such unions possible.\nIt is so in a family; no single member can do exactly what he likes,\nhe must give up something for the others, and it is exactly the same\nin the State and in the Church. In human nature there is an union of\ndifferent elements, and in man as created all these were in complete\naccord; since the Fall disorder has entered into their relations, so\nthat there is divergence of object aimed at by mind, body, and soul.\nGod desires to see man's nature restored to perfect unity, so that all\nconflicting tendencies may cease.\n\n2. Now Sin attacks Society--_i.e._, the Divinely-ordered unity--in\nseveral ways.\n\n(_a_) By _Pride_ it impels the individual to assume a place to which\nhe has no right, or to refuse to the rest those concessions which are\nnecessary to make social harmony possible. Man rebels against being\nonly one among many, and endeavours to thrust himself into prominence\nby arrogating to himself what does not lawfully belong to him.\n\n(_b_) By _Jealousy_ men are excited the one against the other. They\nenvy each other the place, the wealth, the respect, that they have\nobtained. All men cannot have the same position, the same wealth, and\nthe same respect; there must be difference among the members of the\ncommunity, as there are differences among the members of the body.\nSin is an attack on Society when, through envy, it stirs up class\njealousies, and stimulates hostility between different members of the\nsocial body.\n\n(_c_) By _Cupidity_. Men, in their selfish greed to arrogate to\nthemselves all things desirable, use the strength, opportunities,\nposition they have, to draw to themselves the good things of this\nworld, to the despoiling of their fellows. Our Lord warns against love\nof Mammon. No man, He said, could serve God and Mammon, that is,\nriches; and one reason is, that this greed after wealth is not for the\ndistributing of means of subsistence among the many, and the relief\nof the necessitous, but in order that it all may be retained for the\nglorification and indulgence of self.\n\n3. These three motives for the breaking-up of Society are all of\nDiabolic inspiration. As God is the author of unity, so is Satan the\nsource of all schism. God brings men together, and inspires to the\nsacrifice of their individual caprices to the general good; the Evil\nOne, on the other hand, urges to the undue exaltation of the individual\nself, so as to procure separation. He is the cause of discord in\nfamilies, of the sapping of the principles of unity in the State, and\nto heresies and schisms that rend the Church. In a family, in the\nState, in the Church, all members, all classes, all orders, are bound\ntogether for the common good, and the Divine Spirit is in every social\nbody as a good ferment--working out of it what is evil. But the Spirit\nof Evil is the spirit of decomposition, which breaks up all unity. It\nis in the family, in the State, in the Church, what death is to that\nunity, the living man--a break-up into warring units.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Friday in Lent.\n\n_THE EFFECTS OF SIN._\n\n\nWe will now consider what are the effects produced by Sin. These\neffects are _general_ and _particular_.\n\nThe general effects of Sin are as follows:--\n\n1. Sin causes a _stain_ or scar on the soul. But this stain or scar\nis not to be regarded as having a positive existence, but to be a\nprivation. A stain is a deficiency in whiteness, as a scar is a\ndefect in healthy smoothness. We are restored as far as guilt goes,\nby our Baptism, to a state of innocence before God, the infirmity and\nliability to Sin remains in us, but no condemnation before God. Our\nsouls are white and sound, white as bleached linen, sound as an untorn\ngarment. But every sin committed after Baptism is a loss of purity and\nof soundness. The soul that has sinned always after bears traces of\nthe sin committed. The blot may be covered, the rent mended, but the\ntraces of its having been made are never removed, though, indeed, the\nguilt may be put away by true repentance and absolution. This is due\nto the fact that a sin is a something committed, and an act can never\nbe undone, though its consequences may be rectified. A word spoken\ncan never be recalled, nor can an act that has been done. There is\nsalvation for the sinner that repenteth, but the salvation attained by\nthe penitent is and must be different in kind from that achieved by the\nsoul that has never fallen into wilful sin.\n\n2. Sin entails _condemnation_, subjecting to punishment, either\ntemporal or eternal.\n\nAll sin is a violation of God's Commandments, and God is a righteous\nJudge Who will call every man to account for what he has done; but\nnot only _will_ He do so, He _does_ so now; and in this present life,\nto some extent, does punishment come on the man who sins. We see\nthis in actual life, how that certain acts do bring with them their\ncondemnation and their chastisement on the doer of them.\n\nWe see the same in nations that transgress God's laws. God visits it\nupon these nations, and brings them down, till by suffering they have\ncome to recognize their guilt.\n\n3. Sin _alienates_ from God. God hates sin, and he who is in sin is at\nenmity with God, is separated from God, and God's favour is withdrawn\nin a large degree from him. Jesus Christ, by His merits, brought us\ninto reconciliation with the Father, blotting out the handwriting of\noffences that was against us. The merits of Christ's atonement were\n_applied_ to us at our Baptism. Then we who were aliens were made nigh\nby the blood of Christ. Every sin after Baptism separates us from God,\ndarkens the light that shines on us, checks the flow of Divine grace\nthat nourishes our spiritual life.\n\n4. We can, indeed, _return to the favour of God_, through the merits of\nthe death of Christ; but every return from mortal sin is a revival from\nthe dead, a special call back out of the state of transgression into\nwhich we have thrown ourselves, into the way of salvation. To obtain\nthis we must _realize_ that we have sinned, _repent_, be sincerely\nsorry for what we have done, and _resolve_ never to do the same again.\nThen, and not till then, does God for Christ's sake forgive us. No\nrepentance is sufficient that has not the character of recognition of\nthe gravity of the offence, sorrow for having offended God, and sincere\ndesire for amendment.\n\nWhen there is true repentance, then God _pardons the guilt_, but He\ndoes not remove the consequences of the act. The punishment must still\nbe undergone. Thus, a man may have ruined his constitution by his\nexcesses, or squandered his patrimony. He may bitterly deplore his sin,\nand sincerely resolve to avoid all occasions of sin for the future,\nbut, though God on his true repentance blots out his iniquity, He does\nnot restore robustness to his constitution, nor does He return to him\nhis wasted patrimony.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Saturday in Lent.\n\n_THE EFFECTS OF SIN._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\nWe will now further consider the effects of Sin, and these the\nparticular effects.\n\nWe live three lives; as we are made up of Body, Mind, and Soul, each\nhas its special life. The Body lives an animal life, the Mind an\nintelligent life, and the Soul a spiritual life.\n\nSin produces a disturbing and poisoning effect on all these lives.\n\n1. _The life of the Body._ God made man healthy, vigorous, and\nimmortal. The introduction of Sin into the world has produced disease,\ninfirmity, and death.\n\nSin is the cause of hard and exhausting toil, of the many hardships,\nprivations, troubles to which we are exposed in this life, and it is\nthe cause of the separation of soul and body in death, and of the\ncorruption that ensues in the grave.\n\nSin has a certain deteriorating effect on the body when indulged in, at\nall events those sins which are sins of the flesh, such as drunkenness,\ngluttony, sensuality. They bring their condemnation with them on the\nbody that sins.\n\n2. _The life of the Mind._ The true illumination of the mind is God.\nAn intellectual life is willed by God. No man may lawfully neglect to\ncultivate his understanding by neglecting to acquire knowledge, or his\nreason, by neglecting to use his rational power. If man does, he sins,\nhe is wasting a precious gift of God, and the light that is in him is\ndarkened, he becomes a prey to superstition, ignorance, stupidity. The\nlife of his mind becomes stunted and extinguished. Sin acts on the\nmind as well as on the body, it distorts its perception of the truth,\nnarrows its view, and leads it to mistake falsehood for truth.\n\n3. _The life of the Soul._ This is the most important life of all, and\nit is the life usually least regarded. This is the life that is divine\nin us, the breath of God. It has a double aspect (_a_) as to God, and\n(_b_) as to man. That is to say, it lives in two relations, one to God,\nthe other to man.\n\nThis spiritual life is the life of the spiritual faculty in man which\nenables him to see God, to delight in His presence, to love and to fear\nHim, to find pleasure in prayer and in meditation on the things that\nare invisible. It enables him to look beyond time into eternity, and to\ndesire those things that God has promised.\n\nSin, when it has touched the soul, weakens its faculties. Its power of\nvision is affected. \"Blessed are the pure in heart,\" said our Lord,\n\"for they shall see God,\" but impurity is like a film over the eye,\nclouding its vision. As the soul ceases to see God, it ceases also to\nlove Him, it takes less delight in prayer; the body, or the mind, gains\nadvantages over it, the compound life is no longer maintained in due\nbalance, but one factor or other overlaps, and chokes the spiritual\nlife.\n\nAgain, the spiritual life is the life of the spiritual faculty in\nman which enables him to observe God's law, and Sin lames and weakens\nman's moral powers. As long as the spiritual life is healthy, man's\nmoral life is also healthy, for indeed the moral life is only another\naspect of the same divine life in man. But if man delivers himself up\nto Sin, then this moral power in him is weakened, it ceases to speak\ndistinctly, it becomes confused, and finally ceases to speak altogether.\n\nIt is possible by continuance in sin to extinguish the spiritual life\naltogether. If the mind be not employed, then it sinks into inertness\nand death of the rational and intellectual faculties, and unless the\nsoul be allowed to grow and expand, it also will languish. And if by\ncontinuance in Sin the soul be subjected to wound after wound, and its\nvoice be never listened to, then finally it will die.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Sunday in Lent.\n\n_THE DEADLY VICES._\n\n\n1. Certain Vices go by the name of Capital or Deadly Vices, because\nthey lie at the head or source of all sin; and because they mortally\naffect the soul.\n\nBut they are not in themselves acts, but principles or springs out of\nwhich sins issue.\n\nThey are reckoned as seven in number, but neither does Scripture\nindicate this number, nor has the Church come to any decision on this\npoint. It is rather common sense, and common observation, that have\nled to this classification, and it is a classification simple and\nintelligible, and of practical use.\n\nThese seven Capital Vices are seven mothers who, when taken into the\nheart, settle there, and produce large families of sins. They are\n_Vices_, that is to say, they are dispositions towards evil, disordered\ninclinations left in us by original sin, whence spring up in us, _by\nthe consent of the will_, large crops of bad actions, _i.e._, of\nsins. Vice is a habitual disposition towards evil. Sin is the action\nproduced by this disposition when it has seduced the heart into giving\nconsent to it. Vice may exist without sin, and sin can exist without\nvice. That is to say, there may be a vicious inclination which cannot\nmanifest itself in act, because the opportunity is wanting. A sin\nmay be committed without vicious inclination, out of carelessness, or\nagainst the inclination which is towards good, through the weakness of\nthe nature and debility of the will.\n\nEveryone has, more or less, the roots of vices in him, though in some\nthey are far stronger than in others, and in some individuals certain\nvicious propensities are stronger than other vicious propensities.\nOne man may have a natural proclivity towards pride, and this very\ninclination towards pride may neutralize in him the inclination towards\nindolence.\n\n2. The seven Capital Vices are:--\n\n1. Pride. 2. Avarice. 3. Luxury. 4. Envy. 5. Gluttony. 6. Anger. 7.\nIndolence.\n\nOf these Pride, Avarice, and Envy, are vices of the soul; Luxury,\nGluttony, Anger, are vices of the body. Indolence is a vice of the soul\nand of the body.\n\nOf Pride it is said, \"Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination\nto the Lord.\" (Prov. xvi. 5.) \"God resisteth the proud.\" (James iv. 6.)\n\"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride, and arrogancy, and the\nevil way, and the froward mouth do I hate.\" (Prov. viii. 13.)\n\nOf Avarice it is said, \"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not\ninherit the Kingdom of God,\" and S. Paul says that among these are\n\"the covetous\" who \"shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.\" (1 Cor. vi.\n10.) \"No covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in\nthe Kingdom of Christ and of God.\" (Eph. v. 5.) David speaks of \"the\ncovetous, whom God abhorreth.\" (Ps. x. 3.)\n\nOf Luxury, there are many and strong denunciations in Scripture, it is\none of those conditions which, like avarice, shuts out from the Kingdom\nof God. (1 Cor. vi. 10.) S. John saw the luxurious shut out from the\ngates of the New Jerusalem. See also Gal. v. 19.\n\nOf Gluttony, that is of indulgence to excess in eating and drinking,\nthe same is said. \"The works of the flesh are manifest, which are\nthese--drunkenness, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you\nbefore, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such\nthings shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.\" (Gal. v. 21.)\n\nOf Envy it is the same, \"Envyings,\" are included among the works of the\nflesh.\n\nSo also is Anger.\n\nIndolence is the torpor of the soul and body, which will not exert\nitself to do what is right, or to resist what is wrong. It is a state\nof indifference to the true ends for which man has been made, and in\nScripture is called sleep--\"Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from\nthe dead.\"\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Monday in Lent.\n\n_IN WHAT THE VICES ARE ROOTED._\n\n\nThe soil in which the Seven Vices find their root is Self-love, or\nrather in an undue and disordered love of Self. If we really loved\nourselves we would seek to mortify and kill all the vices in us; but it\nis through undue and irrational self-love that the vices find root and\nopportunity to grow and flourish.\n\n1. Self-love is not in itself sinful. God has planted in every man a\nlove for himself. It is part of the nature of every man and of every\nintelligent creature to take care of self, and seek those things which\nconduce to its welfare. God has even set self-love as the measure to us\nof the love we should bear to our fellows. (Matt. xix. 19.)\n\n2. Self-love becomes sinful when it is excessive and unreasonable.\nWhen, for instance, the love of self makes a man disregard another's\nneed or comfort. When, moreover, it becomes a dominating passion in\nthe soul, obscuring and even extinguishing the love of God. When it\nseeks wrong ends for self, the indulgence of selfish pleasures, selfish\ncomforts, passion, glorification. Then self-love is sinful. When a\nperson takes no interest in any subject but what concerns self, has no\ntalk save of what touches self, sees everything in the light in which\nit affects self, then self-love is unduly great.\n\nMoreover, self-love may be disordered when it seeks for its end\napart from God, in its pleasures, in its self-glorification, in its\nself-righteousness. Some people dethrone God and set up self in His\nplace, and make self-interest their only law, and self their only\nlaw-giver. Again, self-love becomes sinful when it sees good where good\nis not, and takes the appearance for the reality.\n\nSelf-love is disposed to self-delusion whenever it is allowed to\nconsider itself too highly.\n\n3. Self-love once excessive and unreasonable, draws on to pride,\navarice, luxury, gluttony, anger, indolence, because it shows man his\nsupreme good in honours that flatter, riches and pleasures that puff\nup and indulge self-love, revenge against such as offend self-love,\nand that neglect of duty which comes so easy to those who give way to\nself-love. All the Seven Vices minister to self-love, pamper and feed\nit, assist in its growth, and tend to make it take the place of God in\nthe heart.\n\nSelf-love is harmless so long as it does not encourage the growth of\nthese noxious vices. We must therefore be very watchful of ourselves,\nand hold our love of self under severe control, never allowing it to\nbecome a soil in which vices may luxuriate, but seeing that it be a\ngarden plot in which Christian graces spring up, which it well may, for\nthe same soil that grows weeds will grow flowers.\n\n4. Self-control, self-renunciation, are required of us by Christ. \"If\nany man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his\ncross, and follow Me.\" (Matt. xvi. 24.) The true love of self has a far\neye and looks to eternity, and seeks those things that are above, not\nthe things that minister to self-love below; seeks the salvation of\nthe soul, not the pampering of the flesh and the flattery of pride. And\nthe only way of obtaining the imperishable riches and unfading joys,\nis by resisting the inclinations of the carnal nature towards such as\nare for a time, and perish in the using. There is a true love of self\nand a false love of self; or rather love may be directed towards the\nelevation of the better self, or to the degradation of the inferior\nself. It is necessary to distinguish between the elements that make\nman, Body, Soul, and Mind, and to seek those things which minister\nto the superior elements--Mind and Soul, not to the animal part of\nman--Body. Or again, not to serve only the Mind and neglect the Soul,\nbut to seek the welfare of the Soul first of all.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFifth Tuesday in Lent.\n\n_PRIDE._\n\n\n1. Pride is the love and estimation man has for himself beyond measure.\nEvery man should have a proper pride in himself as a creature of\nGod, an heir of everlasting life, and so maintain his dignity and\nself-respect, not degenerating into buffoonery, and making himself a\nlaughing-stock to men.\n\nBut Pride must be within due limits. Let no man think more highly of\nhimself than he ought to think.\n\n2. There are five ways in which Pride may become excessive and sinful.\n\n(_a_) When a man is puffed up with self-esteem because of the natural\ngifts he has received, as though they came from himself, and were not\nthe unmerited gift of God. Thus a girl may become vain and conceited\nbecause she has good hair or eyes, and is esteemed a beauty. A man\nbecause he has wealth. He becomes purse-proud. Or because he has great\nabilities. Or because he has great strength and health. This leads to\nvain boasting, to an insolent demeanour, to great self-opinionativeness.\n\n(_b_) When a man regards what successes he has met with as due to\nhis merits. Success may be, and probably is, due in most cases to\nfrugality, sound judgment, caution at one time and daring at another;\nbut there is ever in it an element of the unforeseen, due to God's\nordering. Moreover, the good qualities, the prudence, frugality, and\nso on, in the man are the growth of good elements implanted in him by\nGod. A man must always acknowledge God as the Giver of all good things,\nrecognize His hand in the inception and the carrying out of whatever\nsucceeds, and must not attribute it solely to himself. The thought of\nself drives the thought of God out of the mind.\n\n(_c_) When a man boasts himself of what he has not. When, that is,\nin order to flatter his self-pride before others, he pretends to be,\nor to have what he is not, or has not got. Thus living under false\nappearances, living beyond one's income, are due to Pride.\n\n(_d_) When a man despises others. Every man who looks down on,\ndisparages, and regards others as common and vile, is guilty of Pride.\n\nThe rich have no occasion to despise the poor, those of one social\nclass to talk contemptuously of those of another, or as being _common_\npeople, as _Nobodies_. With God nothing is common, and not one of His\ncreatures is a Nobody. Moreover, it is possible to sin through pride if\nthose who have committed no mortal sins despise such as have sinned.\nSpiritual Pride is the worst kind of Pride.\n\n3. Pride produces a good many children, all bad when overgrown.\n\n(_a_) _Ambition._ The desire to distinguish oneself above others.\nHarmless when moderate, evil when excessive.\n\n(_b_) _Vain-glory._ The desire to make parade of those qualities one\nhas, and to attribute to oneself qualities one has not. Always bad.\n\n(_c_) _Ostentation._ The affectation of making display of those\nadvantages we possess--wealth, cleverness, knowledge, &c. Always not\nonly bad, but vulgar.\n\n(_d_) _Contempt for others_, leading to disparaging what is good in\nothers, and exaggerating their faults. Never other than bad.\n\n(_e_) _Presumption_, which impels to attempt what is beyond one's\npowers. It is not wrong to have self-confidence in what one has. It is\nwrong when one presumes on what _one has not_.\n\n(_f_) _Hypocrisy_, which seeks to show to the world a better face than\nwhat one really has, to pretend to be what one is not. Ever bad.\n\n(_g_) _Obstinacy_, which follows self-determination as if that must be\nright; and a stubbornness which does not suffer a man to give way when\nhis reason has been convinced that he is wrong.\n\n(_h_) _Disobedience_, which follows on self-conceit, making a man\nfollow his own wishes and opinions, and disobey just commands, because\nhe desires independence, or because he despises his superiors and those\nin authority over him.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSixth Wednesday in Lent.\n\n_AVARICE._\n\n\n1. Avarice or Covetousness is a disorderly and unreasonable and\nexcessive attachment to the things of this world, especially to money.\n\nNow the love of the good things of this world is by no means sinful\nin itself, it is legitimate. God gives them to us to enjoy. God gives\nto us earthly things to be possessions, to keep, and to enlarge, and\nmultiply. To throw away wantonly what has been given to us is sinful.\nFor instance, it is sinful to squander money in extravagance, in horse\nracing, in gambling. Riches are a trust, land and houses are a trust,\ngiven us from God, and we must not diminish what we have received, in\namount and value, but endeavour to make them more. It is a token of\ngratitude to God for this gift that we appreciate them, and use them\nprofitably.\n\n2. Worldly goods are given to us to satisfy the necessities of life,\nnot only in the matter of eating, and drinking, and clothing, but of\nour mental and spiritual life also. Our worldly goods are given to us\nto enable us to cultivate art, and science, and literature, all that\ngoes towards the furtherance of the amenities of life: music, painting,\narchitecture, sculpture, horticulture, &c.\n\nWorldly goods are given to us that with them we may do what we can\nto mitigate the miseries of the poor and suffering, and to advance\nGod's Kingdom, and enrich and adorn His Sanctuaries and His Service.\nConsequently we are using our riches aright when we seek out means of\nrelieving distress, when we assist in the propagation of the Gospel\namong the heathen, and when we build and decorate Churches, and provide\nfor the beautiful musical rendering of the worship of God.\n\n3. Avarice is a mortal vice when we:--\n\n(_a_) Desire the good things of this world for the sole gratification\nthey yield to our senses, when they minister to our luxury. When we\nlove them for a selfish reason, and value them only as they minister to\nthe comfort, ease, indulgence, and pampering of self.\n\n(_b_) Avarice is a sin when we desire the good things of this world\ninordinately. \"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the\nworld. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.\nFor all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of\nthe eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the\nworld.\" (1 John ii. 15, 16.)\n\nExcessive love of the things of this world becomes idolatry. (Eph. v.\n6.)\n\n(_c_) Avarice is a sin when it agitates the mind, and occupies it with\nexcessive anxiety after the good things of this world. \"Take no thought\nfor the morrow,\" says our Lord, \"for the morrow shall take thought\nfor the things of itself.\" \"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His\nrighteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.\" (Matt.\nvi. 33, 34.) That is to say, the mind is to be mainly occupied with\nthe true end of life, and strain for that, and the striving after all\nmaterial interests must be kept in subordination to that.\n\n(_d_) Avarice, or Covetousness, has several daughters. It produces in\nman--1. _Callousness_ to distress. He loses feeling for the distress\nof the poor and suffering. He begrudges everything given to them as\nsomething taken from himself. 2. _Dishonesty._ In order to increase\nwealth, the Conscience is hushed to pass over certain fraudulent\nor dishonest acts whereby money may be gained unfairly, by false\nrepresentation, by selling a thing at what is beyond its worth, &c.\n3. _Unrest._ The mind is engrossed by the cares and anxieties of the\npursuit of wealth, so that no good seed can grow in it. The calm and\npeace of a Conscience at rest in God pursuing the true end is gone, and\nis replaced by constant uneasiness as to how certain speculations will\nturn out, what profit will come from a certain sale, or how certain\nlosses are to be made up.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSixth Thursday in Lent.\n\n_LUXURY._\n\n\n1. Luxury incites to the indulgence of the senses excessively, beyond\nwhat God's law permits. As a vice, it consists in the love of what is\nsensuous, and the inclination to yield to the pleasures of the sense.\n\nIt leads to forgetfulness of God and idolatry. That is to say, to\nthe enthronement of self in the place of God. Everything is made to\ngive way to the indulgence of the pleasures and caprices of self. God\nexacts of us the homage of the entire man--body, soul and spirit;\nluxury corrupts the body so that it can no longer be presented holy\nand without blame to God; stains and enervates the soul, and dulls the\nmind, filling it with lassitude and indifference.\n\nIt leads to sacrilege, for sacrilege is the profanation of that which\nis dedicated to God. Now, man's body is the temple of the Holy Ghost,\nand S. Paul shews that sensuality is a defilement of this temple.\n\nMoreover, Christ took human nature upon Him to restore human nature,\nto purify it, and if we by indulgence desecrate the body, we are\ndishonouring that nature which Christ stooped to assume.\n\n2. Luxury indulged in becomes a _servitude_. He that doeth sin is the\nservant of sin. (John viii. 13.) The more that the carnal nature is\nyielded to, the more exacting it becomes. It is never satisfied, it\nis ever crying out for fresh pleasures, and even when the faculty of\nenjoyment is over, the burning craving after new pleasures remains.\n\nLuxury indulged in _gives the Evil One power over us_. At first he\nadvised, suggested evil, then he commands as a master, and will be\nobeyed. The sinner groans in his bondage and desires to escape, but\nremains in chains, his efforts to escape are powerless.\n\nLuxury indulged in _weakens the power of resistance_. The sinner\nbecomes with every sin yielded to more frail and more cowardly. His\nwill becomes more powerless every time he yields, he makes the next\nfall more easy, recovery more difficult.\n\n3. Luxury is not merely the yielding to gross sins of the flesh. It is\na root of inclination in man to yield to and pamper the body in many\nways not in themselves sinful. Any excessive indulgence in pleasure, in\nease, in dress, in entertainments, in distractions, in \u251c\u017dstheticism, may\nbe, and often is, mortal vice. To take a simple case, the reading of\nnovels. A novel may be read as a distraction from laborious thought, or\npainful thought. But to make fiction the main nutriment of the mind and\nimagination is to indulge in the vice of luxury.\n\nMan is sent into this world to do some good to others, to fill some\nsocial gap, and to educate his mind, discipline his body, and cultivate\nhis soul. But luxury bids him distract his mind from serious pursuits,\nand seek distraction as an end. Luxury, instead of bracing, enervates\nthe body, and it neglects the soul, if it does not cover it with\nstains.\n\n4. Gross indulgence in luxury, and long continuance in luxurious living\ndegrades the heart. The heart is rendered incapable of responding to\nnoble thoughts.\n\nIt blinds the mind to Divine things. As the pure in heart see God, the\nimpure have their understanding darkened to Divine things.\n\nIt chokes the spiritual life. To the luxurious prayer gives disgust,\nreligious counsel irritates.\n\nIt hardens the heart, it leads from sin to sin, till sin becomes a\nhabit, and habit becomes impenitence. Then the grace of God leaves the\nsoul entirely, and spiritually the soul is dead.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSixth Friday in Lent.\n\n_ENVY._\n\n\n1. Envy is a sadness which affects the mind on the contemplation of\nadvantage accruing to a fellow-being, and which we resent as though\nwhat was his good was our ill. Or else it is a gladness which we feel\nwhen we see or hear of some disadvantage happening to a fellow-being.\nOr again, it may be a dissatisfaction at his having some natural\ngifts or divine favours accorded to him which we are without, or\na satisfaction at his having certain natural defects, faults, or\ninfirmities.\n\n2. There is no sin in the feeling of the heart when we are sad at the\nsuccess of another, which has not fallen to us, so long as it does\nnot embitter us, and so long as it serves to spur us to activity.\n_Emulation_ is not sinful. On the contrary, God allows of inequalities,\nin order to stimulate us to use our energies, and exercise our\nfaculties to the utmost. Emulation is only sinful when with it goes\nloss of charity.\n\nThere is no sin in the feeling of the heart when we are sad or wrath\nat persons obtaining advantages which they do not deserve. This is\n_Indignation_, and springs out of a wounded sense of justice. But such\nindignation must not prompt us to disparage, backbite, and injure those\nwho have succeeded without just cause for success.\n\nThere is no sin in the feeling of the heart when we are disconcerted\nat certain persons obtaining positions of trust and authority which we\nbelieve they will misuse. This is _Fear of Evil_, and is legitimate.\nAt the same time, as we cannot see the hearts and measure the\nunderstandings of others, it is possible we may undervalue them, and\nthat they will do better than we have thought probable.\n\nThere is no sin in the feeling of the heart when we feel glad that\na person whom we deem unworthy has failed to obtain, or has lost an\nemployment for which he was incapable.\n\nNor is there anything wrong in the feeling of satisfaction at the\npunishment of an evil-doer.\n\n3. Envy is that gall of the heart which is the reverse of charity.\nEnvy is bred of self-esteem, and it hates to see others better,\nhappier, more esteemed, more prosperous than self. It is _selfish\negoism_, desiring to possess all advantages itself. It is a _baseness\nof the soul_, which cannot endure to see anything superior to its own\nmean self. It is a _falsity of judgment_, for it interprets awrong\neverything done by the person it envies. It is _hypocritical_, for it\nknows the despicable quality of its emotions, and veils them under all\nkinds of disguises.\n\n4. It is the most distressing of spiritual maladies. It is to the soul\nwhat rust is to iron, canker to a tree, corroding and destroying all\nhappiness, brightness, amiability.\n\nIt poisons the entire life.\n\nIt is, moreover, the fruitful mother of many sins.\n\nIt produces (_a_) slander, backbiting, malicious words, (_b_)\nuncharitable and cruel acts of animosity and vengeance.\n\nIt is a vice most hateful to God. \"Envy,\" says Solomon, is \"the\nrottenness of the bones.\" (Prov. xiv. 30.) \"Though I bestow all my\ngoods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and\nhave not charity, it profiteth me nothing,\" says S. Paul. (1 Cor. xiii.\n3.) It is one of the works of the flesh that excludes from the kingdom\nof God. (Gal. v. 21.) \"If ye have bitter envying and strife in your\nhearts, glory not ... this ... is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where\nenvying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.\" (James\niii. 15, 16.)\n\n5. One belief among theologians is that the Devil fell through Envy;\nwhen he knew for what God had created man, he was filled with jealousy\nof man, and therefore revolted. As charity is the greatest of virtues,\nand sweetens and glorifies the whole life, and is that virtue most near\nto Christ, so is Envy the greatest of vices, souring and darkening the\nwhole life, and bringing most into likeness to the Devil.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nSixth Saturday in Lent.\n\n_GLUTTONY._\n\n\n1. Gluttony is the vice of greedy love of eating and drinking beyond\nmeasure. If it be a love of eating too much it is _greediness_; if a\nlove of eating and drinking only choice and palatable things, then it\nis _daintiness_. Now God requires us to eat and drink what is necessary\nfor our life and health, and He gives to us a sensation of pleasure in\neating and drinking in order to encourage us to eat and drink what is\ngood and healthful.\n\nGluttony is the opposite vice to the virtue of temperance.\n\nSome people are particular not to drink fermented liquors, but gorge\nthemselves with food. They are quite as guilty of excess in one way as\nthose who drink beyond measure. The gifts of God are bestowed to be\nused, and used in moderation. To despise and reject any gift of God as\nin itself bad is to sin against God. So S. Paul speaks of those who\nforbad meats, and so nowadays some intemperate advocates of temperance\nforbid all fermented liquors as in themselves bad. Sin does not exist\nin eating and drinking, but in eating and drinking immoderately.\n\n2. There is sin when (_a_) one eats and drinks in excess of what nature\nrequires, merely for the sake of the pleasure of eating and drinking.\n\n(_b_) One eats or drinks with daintiness, picking and choosing, and\ndisparaging food or drink if it be not quite what suits our pampered\ntastes.\n\n(_c_) One spends too much time, or thought, or money, over food and\ndrink.\n\n(_d_) One disorders the health, and confuses the mind, through overmuch\neating and drinking.\n\n3. There is a virtue in self-denial in eating and drinking. Our Lord\nHimself exhorts to fasting (Matt. vi. 16), and Himself set us the\nexample to fast. It must, however, never be done to excess, so as to\ninjure the health. And as it is well to abstain from food, so is it\nwell to abstain from intoxicating drinks, if done merely as an act of\nself-denial, and to avoid scandal.\n\n4. Gluttony or Drunkenness is the fruitful mother of several evil\nchildren.\n\n(_a_) The _degradation of the superior faculties_, which are weakened\nby surfeiting and drunkenness. The mind is abased, and the soul\nsmothered by excessive eating and drinking.\n\n(_b_) _Forgetfulness of Salvation._ The soul becomes so lost in the\ngrossness of the life led by the glutton, and the gourmand, and the\ndrunkard, that it does not care for the things of the life to come.\n\n(_c_) _Laxity of Morals._ When the thoughts are given up to pampering\nthe animal man in one particular, the power to resist temptation to\nindulge the animal appetites in other particulars is weakened, if not\nlost.\n\n(_d_) _Passion._ The glutton and the drunkard are liable to give way to\nexplosions of rage and anger, to quarrels and discords. Self-restraint\nbeing sacrificed in one quarter is lost in another.\n\n\n\n\nPalm Sunday.\n\n_ANGER._\n\n\n1. Anger is an agitation of the heart against persons or things that\ndisplease us, impelling us to reject them and injure them. It urges us\nto avenge ourselves on them for the wrong they have done, or that we\nimagine they have done to us.\n\nAnger is not necessarily in itself sinful. It is legitimate when it is\njust, when the feeling is moderate, when the desire of punishment is\nproportioned to the offence, and when it is soon passed.\n\nIt is sinful when it is _unjust_, _excessive_, _vengeful_, and\n_lasting_.\n\nWe feel angry when we see a wrong done, the weak oppressed, the truth\nspoken against, religion mocked. Such a feeling is right, it is\n_righteous zeal_. But Anger must not be allowed to get the dominion\nover us. That is what the Apostle says when he bids us, \"Be ye angry,\nand sin not.\"\n\n2. Anger is criminal in its _object_, when it seeks vengeance on a\nperson for a wrong he has not really done, or in excess of his deserts.\n\nAnger is criminal in its _means_, when it goes about to avenge a wrong\nby some illicit means, as by slander, by bringing hurt upon the person\nwho has given the offence in a secret, underhand way.\n\nAnger is criminal in its _motive_, when it pursues the offender\nremorselessly, even though he deserves punishment.\n\nAnger is criminal in its _motions_, if they be allowed to pass the\nbounds of moderation, and obscure the judgment, that is to say, if it\nbecome a blazing passion.\n\nAnger is criminal in its _expression_, when it impels to extravagant,\ninsulting, false words, or violent acts.\n\n3. Let us now return to the consideration of the four qualities of\nAnger that justify or condemn it.\n\n(_a_) It is sinful if it be _unjust_, and lawful if _just_. We must,\ntherefore, be very careful not to allow our eyes to be blinded by\npassion so as to judge wrongfully. We are very liable to mistake, and\nmay suppose a thing is done against us intentionally, when it has been\ndone accidentally. We must, therefore, not be impulsive in our Anger.\n\n(_b_) It is sinful when _excessive_. We must not give way to the\nfeeling of Anger, so as to allow it to grow out of indignation at the\nsense of wrong done into a hot personal passion that, like a whirlwind,\nwill sweep us away with it.\n\n(_c_) It is sinful when _vengeful_. God says, \"Vengeance is mine, I\nwill repay.\" We must seek only the redress of the wrong, not the injury\nof the wrong doer. We must seek his good, not his hurt, in the exercise\nof punishment. That makes all the difference between retribution and\nrevenge.\n\n(_d_) It is sinful when _lasting_. \"Let not the sun go down on your\nwrath,\" is S. Paul's rule. If we bear anger and malice in the heart,\nthe longer we harbour it the more unreasonable it grows. Anger must\nbe soon over, ready to die out at once when the opportunity presents\nitself for forgiveness.\n\n\n\n\nMonday in Holy Week.\n\n_SLOTH._\n\n\n1. Sloth is that love of indolence, or dislike to exertion, which\ninduces man to neglect his duties.\n\nThe will is given to man as a determining faculty to impel him to\naction in the right course, and to hold him back from activity in the\nwrong direction. Sloth is that inertness which holds back the will from\nforming a determination, and therefore usually holds man back from\nfulfilling his duties. It may hold him back from doing what is wrong,\nand so may be of a negative advantage, and yet it so saps the life of\nthe will as to make it incapable of doing any good, that it would in\nsome cases be better in the end for a man to have chosen what is wrong,\nand to have repented, than to have remained inert in the presence of a\nquestion set before him to decide upon.\n\nIt cannot be sufficiently impressed on Christians that they have\n_positive_ duties, that they are not called on to be a kind of moral\njelly-fish, but to a life of activity, and of activity healthy and\nwell-directed. It is in order that they may live this life of healthy,\nwell-directed activity, that Conscience is given them. Nor can any man\n_shirk his duties_ without mortal sin, for he is going contrary to the\nWill of God, and frustrating the intention of God in sending him into\nthe world. There is a place for every man, there is work for every man,\na line for every man to walk along, and Conscience to direct, and will\nto determine, are given to every man to enable him to take his place,\ndo his work, follow his course. He may take the wrong place, do the\nwrong work, and follow the wrong road, and he sins when he so does.\nBut he also sins, and sins quite as gravely, when he refuses through\nindolence to take his proper place, and fulfil his predestined duties.\n\n2. Every man has faculties of some sort, and for some end. He has\nintellectual powers, manual dexterity, a sensitive eye or ear, and so\non, and it is the duty of every man to come early and clearly to a\nperception of what his special abilities are, and then to cultivate\nthem to his utmost. So is he fulfilling God's will. But if he says,\n\"I am a man of private means, there is no occasion for me to exert\nmy intellect to acquire knowledge, to work at painting, study music,\nfollow mechanics,\" and so he does not develop his natural gift, he sins\nagainst God, he is _wasting his talent_, through sloth.\n\nAgain, no man is justified in half doing what he is set to do. A good\nmany men and women are content to obtain a smattering of knowledge,\nand to dabble in the fine arts, to trifle with science, merely so as\nto be able to chatter in society about these things. But if anyone has\na faculty enabling him to do anything; if anyone has a task set him to\ndo, he must do it thoroughly; do it \"as unto the Lord, and not unto\nmen.\" The servant must not half do his work, the tradesman leave the\narticle he turns out unfinished off, nor the man of culture be content\nwith a smattering of knowledge. All must alike _make full exercise_ of\ntheir talents. What their hands or minds find to do, they must do well,\nor they sin through the vice of sloth.\n\n3. Sloth is hateful to God. \"The Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence,\"\nsaid Christ. The violent, _i.e._, the active, take it by storm. The\n_unprofitable_ servant is condemned because he did not put his talent\nto usury.\n\nThe barren fig-tree was cursed because it produced no fruit.\n\n4. Sloth is the fruitful mother of vicious children.\n\n(_a_) _Indolence_, and loss of time, and for the use of our time we\nmust give account.\n\n(_b_) _Cowardice_, which makes us shrink from doing what is right\nbecause we fear it will give us trouble or inconvenience.\n\n(_c_) _Inconstancy_, which is the changing about from one course to\nanother, to avoid present discomfort, instead of acting directly in\naccordance with the principle.\n\n(_d_) _Deadness of heart_ to God's calls.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nTuesday in Holy Week.\n\n_THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN._\n\n\n1. We have considered Conscience as the faculty by which we discern\nbetween Good and Evil, and then have considered Sin itself.\n\nNow we will briefly turn our attention to the Sacrifice offered by\nChrist in expiation for the Sins of the World.\n\nIf Christ had not come to release us of the _guilt_ of sin, and to\nstrengthen us to overcome the _weakness_ produced by sin, we could have\nno hope of salvation.\n\n2. It is not a matter on which we will tarry, to ask, Why it is\nso, but we will accept the fact that by God's Will, _transgression\nof His Commandment carries with it guilt, and can only be expiated\nby suffering_. That it should carry with it guilt is indeed not a\nmatter to perplex us, for guilt is the sense of transgression and\nthe privation or stain that attends it, together with the sense of\nalienation from God. But that sin can only be expiated by suffering, is\na law of God concerning which we will not now argue, but accept it. We\nsee that a sense of sin has ever impressed on mankind consciousness of\nguilt before God, and a conviction that only through suffering could\nthat guilt be done away.\n\nThe SACRIFICES inexplicable in themselves and even absurd, find their\nsignification in the consciousness of guilt: men felt that they were\nalienated from God, sinful before God, and they sought by Sacrifice,\n_i.e._, by suffering, to atone for their guilt.\n\nThe _idea of Sacrifice_ contained in it these elements:\n\n(_a_) It must be one of _blood_. Suffering and the shedding of blood\nwas considered expiatory. \"Without shedding of blood was no remission.\"\n(Heb. ix. 22.)\n\n(_b_) It must be either a _human_ sacrifice, or it must be the\nsacrifice of that which was most useful, essential to man: not of a\nwild beast, for instance, but of a tame beast of domestic utility.\n\n(_c_) It must be _innocent_ and pure, without defect or spot. It was\nsometimes the first-born lamb or calf.\n\n(_d_) It must be, if possible, _voluntary_. A Sacrifice was thought\nto lose half its efficacy unless it were a free-will offering. Among\nGreeks and Romans, water was poured into the ears of oxen brought to\nsacrifice, to make them nod their heads, and so give an appearance of\nconsent to their death.\n\n(_e_) It must be in part consumed by the fire, in part by the offerer.\nThe fire was the symbol of God accepting; the participation in the\nsacrifice showed the man who offered that he received the benefits of\nthe Sacrifice.\n\n3. Sacrifice was not only expiatory, but it was also _vicarious_; that\nis to say, from the beginning man saw that the innocent might die for\nthe guilty. Now this could only be so seen because indistinctly the\nhuman Conscience looked to the One Sinless Victim Who would by His\nSacrifice of Himself, put away the sins of the world. But for this it\nwould have been unreasonable.\n\nIt was, however, an universal belief that the just might suffer for the\nunjust, the blameless for the guilty, and that was why the sacrificer\nsought out the spotless victim as the victim.\n\nThis belief also was the occasion of numerous sublime heroic acts\nof self-devotion in the heathen world, when one man offered himself\nfor the fault of all the people: as when Codrus died for his people,\nCurtius plunged into the gulf in the Forum, Decius offered his breast\nto the weapons of his enemies.\n\nIt was this belief which caused sacrifices to be multiplied, and yet it\nwas certain that these numerous sacrifices never really took away the\nsense of guilt that weighed on mankind. \"The law, having the shadow of\ngood things to come, and not the very image (_i.e._, reality) of the\nthings, can never with these sacrifices which they offered year by year\ncontinually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not\nhave ceased to be offered, because that the worshippers once purged\nshould have no more conscience of sin. But in those sacrifices there is\na remembrance (or recapitulation) again made of sins every year. For it\nis not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away\nsins.\" (Heb. x. 1-4.)\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nWednesday in Holy Week.\n\n_THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST._\n\n\n1. As the sin of the world was infinite, it was not possible that any\nsacrifice that man could offer could put away the guilt of sin.\n\nTherefore our Lord Jesus Christ came down from Heaven to make a full,\nperfect, and sufficient Sacrifice for sin. He died the Just for the\nunjust, the Sinless for the guilty, to reconcile us to God by the\ntaking away of the guilt of our transgression.\n\n2. Christ sacrificed for this purpose everything that He had,\nwithholding nothing, so that the oblation might be complete. In the\nGarden of Olives He yielded up His Soul to sorrow even unto death,\nfeeling the natural shrinking from death; endured the revulsion and\nloathing that accompanied the sense of the vileness and hatefulness of\nthe sins He took upon Him; and by the sense of pain that the presence\nof sin brings on the soul.\n\nHe suffered the bereavement of friends, their cowardice and desertion;\nthe betrayal by Judas, the denial by Peter.\n\nHe suffered the privation of His liberty, for He was made fast, and was\ndragged away by the soldiers and servants.\n\nBefore His judges He suffered in His honour. He was buffetted and\nmocked, and smitten in the face, and spit upon, and exposed to the\nmultitude as a criminal.\n\nHe suffered in His reputation. The robber, Barabbas, was chosen in His\nplace.\n\nHe was publicly condemned as a criminal. He was made to bear His Cross,\nand was crucified between two thieves.\n\nHe suffered in His Body. He was scourged. He was crowned with thorns,\nand then smitten over the head. He was tormented by the driving of the\nnails through His hands and feet. He was tortured by suspension on the\nCross; by thirst and fever.\n\nHe was despoiled of His garments, and exposed in nakedness to the\nderision of His enemies.\n\nHe was deprived of the succour of His mother, and of His faithful\nfriends in the agony of death.\n\nFinally, He gave up His life, when He had suffered in every way He\ncould suffer, and with a loud cry died.\n\n3. Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross by His suffering _expiated_ our\nguilt.\n\nOur Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross died as a _vicarious_ sacrifice for\nus.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nThursday in Holy Week.\n\n_THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S SACRIFICE._\n\n\nWe will consider Christ's Sacrifice in its relation to God and in its\nrelation to man.\n\n1. In relation to God, it was a full and sufficient sacrifice\nsatisfying the Divine Justice.\n\nA satisfaction is, in general, the voluntary reparation made to one who\nhas been injured or wronged. It may be equivalent to the wrong, when\nthe reparation is equal in degree to the offence. It may be suitable\nwhen it is proportioned to the powers of him who offers the atonement.\n\nThe satisfaction due to God from man could never have been equivalent\nto the injury or wrong done; therefore Christ made atonement, and His\nSacrifice is equivalent, for it is in proportion to the offence; as the\noffence is infinitely great, so is His satisfaction infinite in its\ngreatness.\n\nAn offence is more or less grave according to the exaltation of the\nperson offended. And an expiation is more or less full and perfect\naccording to the dignity of the person who offers expiation. Now God\nwas offended by man's sin; and it is the God-Man Who makes atonement\nfor that sin.\n\nThe distance between God and man was so great that no man could\npossibly, even measurably, have approached God and made satisfaction\nfor his grave offence. Moreover, the sum of offences was so great that\nnothing in the world could atone for it.\n\n2. Our Lord Jesus Christ by His Sacrifice for sins became our\n_Expiation_. \"When He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and\noffering Thou wouldest not, but a Body hast Thou prepared Me. In burnt\nofferings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast no pleasure: Then said I,\nLo, I come to do Thy Will (to make a free-will offering), O God. Above\nwhen He said, Sacrifice and offering ... Thou wouldest not ... which\nwas offered by the Law; then said I, Lo, I come to do Thy Will (to make\na free-will offering), O God. He taketh away the first (the symbolic\nSacrifice) that He may establish the second (the full, perfect,\nfree-will Sacrifice of Christ).\" (Heb. x. 5-9.)\n\nHe became our _Substitute_. \"Christ hath once suffered for sins, the\njust for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.\" (1 Pet. iii. 18.)\n\"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us--He\ntook it out of the way, nailing it to His Cross.\" (Col. i. 14.)\n\nHe became our _Redemption_. \"Ye were not redeemed with corruptible\nthings, as silver and gold--but with the precious blood of Christ, as\nof a lamb without blemish and without spot.\" (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.)\n\n3. Thus we see that Christ, by His full and voluntary Sacrifice of\nHimself, by His incomparable sufferings and death, made atonement to\nGod for the transgressions we had committed against Him, thus removing\nthe barrier that stood between the just and righteous God and man.\nThat He suffered in our place; a vicarious victim enduring the wrath of\nGod, and the pains due to us for our transgression of God's law. And\nthat He paid the price whereby we were bought back out of servitude to\nevil, and set at liberty to serve God in freedom.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nGood Friday.\n\n_THE EFFECTS OF THE PASSION._\n\n(CONTINUED.)\n\n\n1. The satisfaction offered by our Lord Jesus Christ was perfect.\n\nHis offering was a _free will_ one. He came down from Heaven to redeem\nmen. \"Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life\nthat I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it\ndown of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take\nit again.\" (John x. 17, 18.) Although His human will recoiled from the\nprospect of humiliation and death, yet He submitted it to the Divine\nWill, \"Not Mine, but Thine be done.\"\n\nIt was _complete_, and fulfilled all the requirements of justice. None\nbut God Himself could offer a complete and perfect atonement for the\nmass of transgressions committed against God.\n\n2. By His Sacrifice for sin, our Lord Jesus Christ has _redeemed_ us\nfrom sin, taken away from us the stain of sin. \"Jesus Christ ... Who\nloved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood.\" (Rev. i.\n5.) Consequently our sins are no more imputed to us. They have been\ncancelled. We are no more under wrath, but are children of God. He has\n_delivered us from the power of sin_. He that committeth sin is the\nservant of sin. (John viii. 34.) He has delivered us from the power of\nsin. Sin hath no more dominion over us. We are no longer under sin,\nbut under grace. By nature we were in bondage to Satan, who held men\nin hard servitude, with no power of escape from it, but by Christ's\nredemption we have been brought out of the Egypt of bondage, and set in\nthe glorious liberty of the children of God. We are, as S. Paul says,\n\"made free from sin.\" We are, by the merits of Christ's atonement,\nplaced in the same position in which Adam was before he fell. And if we\nfall after we have been placed in a state of grace, we fall by our own\nfault.\n\n_He has delivered us from the chastisement due for our sins._ All sin\nentails punishment. But Christ has not only taken from us the guilt\nof sin, but also to a large extent the suffering due as a penalty for\nsin. Not indeed wholly, as it is necessary for our education that we\nshould still feel pain if we transgress a law, but He has removed all\nsave what is necessary for our discipline. Sin indeed deserved eternal\nseparation from God, as it was an alienation from God, it must have\nled further and further away from Him into outer darkness and eternal\ndeath. But Christ has delivered us from this. He is always ready to\nrestore us to our former position in the way of salvation.\n\n3. By the Sacrifice of Christ's death, the expiation is _universal_.\nThat is to say, Christ made atonement for the sins of the whole world.\nHe did all that was necessary to redeem the souls of those already\ndead, of those then alive, but also of all those who should live in\nages to come. He did not die for the Jews only, or for the Gentiles\nonly, or for only a few elect, but for all mankind, that all mankind\nmight be saved.\n\nHow is it then that some are lost? It is because all will not accept\nHis redemption; they refuse the benefits He offers, reject His precious\nblood, and will have nothing to do with His salvation. Brought, may be,\nout of darkness into light, they go back into thraldom to the Evil One,\ntrample on God's mercy, and wilfully resist Him. Grace and pardon are\noffered to all, but all will not receive.\n\nNo man, not even the heathen, is lost eternally, except by wilful\nopposition to what he knows to be the truth. Some may have little\nlight, others have more, but whosoever will follow his light as far\nas it shines, he will not have his shortcomings imputed to him, but\nthrough the abounding mercy and merits of Jesus Christ will be saved.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nEaster Eve.\n\n_THE APPLICATION OF THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST._\n\n\n1. Having seen how Christ made a full, perfect, and sufficient\nsacrifice for the sins of the whole world, we will now see how we can\napply the merits of His Sacrifice to our own souls, to _cleanse_ them\nfrom dead works, and to _strengthen_ them for obedience in His service.\n\n2. The _atoning blood of Christ is applied in the Sacraments_. First,\nin the Sacrament of Baptism the blood of Christ is the efficient cause\nof the neophyte passing out of the bondage of Satan into the Kingdom of\nGod. By that blood we obtain remission of original sin.\n\nBut we sin after Baptism. How is past baptismal sin to be effaced?\n\n(_a_) There must be a _right disposition_ on our part. We must _come\nto a knowledge_ of our sinful state; then we must _bitterly grieve_\nover our transgression, and we must then _resolve not to sin again_;\nin other words, knowing our sin we must acknowledge it, be contrite,\nand have full purpose of amendment. These three elements go to make up\n_true repentance_. And without true repentance there can be no pardon\naccorded us.\n\n(_b_) When there is this right disposition, then we must _plead the\nSacrifice of Christ's death_. This we do in the way Christ Himself\nappointed, by the oblation of the Holy Eucharist. In this we show\nforth the Lord's death till He come. In this we offer up before God\nthe atoning blood of Christ in expiation for our offences. Then we\ngo before the Throne of the Eternal Father, and righteous Judge; we\nshow that we are ourselves in the right disposition, _i.e._, truly\nrepentant, we acknowledge our offences, show Him that we bewail\nthem, earnestly entreat for grace to amend, and then plead that\nall-prevailing Sacrifice, through which alone our repentance can be\naccepted.\n\n(_c_) But all prayer is an echo of the great Eucharistic Sacrifice, for\nall prayer is offered through the name, the merits, and mediation of\nJesus Christ. Prayer is availing, because we have access to the Father\nthrough Christ.\n\n3. _The Sacrifice of Christ obtains for us strength_, and this is\ndistributed to us in the Sacraments. At the Lord's table we are\nstrengthened and refreshed with the Body and Blood of Christ, enabled\nthrough Him to resist temptation, overcome natural weakness, grow\nstrong in His grace, and attain to the likeness of Christ. We should\nhave no help from above were it not that Christ has won it for us by\nHis Sacrifice.\n\nThus through Jesus Christ, we who were sometime aliens are brought nigh\nto God, made the children of God, and perfected unto the Day of the\nLord.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n * * * * *\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nItalic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\nThe illustrations indicated at the end of each chapter are small, black\nMaltese-style crosses.\n\nObvious printer's errors corrected.\n\nEvery effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as\npossible, including obsolete and variant spellings, inconsistent\nhyphenation, unclear grammatical usage, and other inconsistencies.","title":"Conscience and Sin: Daily Meditations for Lent, Including Week-days and Sundays","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":30338}