Sivut kuvina

fections; it lays its first restraint on the affections; and it maintains its influence over the whole man by means of the control it exercises there. We, therefore, in vain strive to escape the obligations of an internal, spiritual religion, by taking up this definition of the love of God.

Indeed, it is possible to keep all the commandments of exter nal duty, which some are so ready to suppose the whole love of God, without any reference to his authority, without the design of obeying him, without being influenced in any proper sense by the knowledge of his existence. There are men, from all whose calculations the Deity is excluded; in all whose plans, praise-worthy as they may be, his will is unconsulted. They may not oppose his will, because it coincides with their own inclination; yet they would not hesitate to oppose it, if it thwarted their inclinations. It cannot, therefore, be said that the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts. This must be something in the motive, something which influences the will; a principle within, which pervades the affections and is the living spring of all the character.

It is with such a spirit as this, that the love of the world is irreconcilable; by which appears to be intended, in one word, worldly mindedness. By the love of God is meant such an affection as makes a reference to him the ruling principle and motive. Consequently by love to the world can be meant, nothing less, than that devotedness to the world, which makes a reference to it the ruling principle and motive; that is, nothing less than worldly mindedness.

For it cannot be pretended that every degree of attachment to the world, is inconsistent with the love of God, or true piety, and therefore to be avoided as sinful. The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; and a man may be religiously attached to it, as displaying the glory of his Maker. It has been to him the scene of many blessings; and he may therefore love it as part of his Father's house. In the world, too, are included its inhabitants; our parents, children, relatives, friends; and certainly natural affection is not opposed to piety. It is true, there is some very strong prohibitory language on this point. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." But it is universally allowed that such strong expressions cannot be received literally; but must mean precisely what is meant when our Lord says, "He who loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." The affection is not condemned, but the degree of it; extravagant, unreasonable affection. So where his apostle speaks of "lovers of pleasure, more than lovers of God," he im

plies not the sinfulness of every pleasure, but the wickedness of its excess. So also, the love of the world is condemned, not absolutely, but comparatively; it is condemned because it interferes with the love of God; that is, just so far as it interferes.

The doctrine of indifference to the world, must not be carried to a gloomy and superstitious excess. Certainly neither reason nor religion demand of us to renounce any thing of the world, except its sins; and accordingly our Lord's prayer for his disciples was, "I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil." Indifferent to it we should be, so far as not to place our dependence upon it for happiness, so that we can bear its changes cheerfully, and feel the denial of its pleasures no oppressive evil, and can give up all, and still find that our most valuable possessions are left us. For if mere worldly good is essential to our peace; if our pleasures become dissipation, and unfit us for duty; if our bibles are unopened, our closets unvisited, our hearts unexamined, and our future existence an unwelcome thought; then we love the world too well, and are too much absorbed in things temporal. But we do not love it too well, so long as religious duties are a pleasure, and christian privileges dear to us.

But we are not to be enquiring how near we can go to the borders of the forbidden land, and yet be safe. It is no wisdom to be nourishing the utmost attachment to the world which is allowable. We shall naturally have enough; the real danger is, that we shall have too much; for there is nothing which so easily runs to excess. Our affections will readily enough be set on things below; our duty is to prevent their being absorbed there, and to place them on things above. Let us remember then, that there is an attachment to them wholly incompatible with a religious character. Devotion to the world leaves no room for devotion to God. Worldly mindedness must and will destroy piety. In the nature of things, they are opposed to each other. All sin, of whatever kind it be, has its origin in the undue influence of the world; all temptations spring from the power which present scenes have over the mind; and there is no reason why faith is weak, and piety cold, and virtue irresolute, except this influence of the world. If we were in the midst of things eternal, as we are of things temporal, and they pressed directly upon our senses as these do; then our thoughts would be filled with them, our hearts devoted to them, our lives consecrated to them. Our alienation from them now, is owing to the more importunate presence of sensual things, in many respects more welcome to imperfect beings, which crowd away the objects of faith. This is the

New Series.-vol. I.


secret of worldly mindedness. Thus it is that piety cannot exist in its company. If you open your bosom to it, it will rush in and fill every corner, and occupy every avenue, so that the love of God can find no place there. The christian cannot look around him without observing melancholy proofs of this, in the lives of men engaged in favourite pursuits, to which religion is an interruption. He cannot look on his own history without recollecting, that, by multiplying his engagements, he has often palsied his religious sensibility, and diminished the influence of his faith. He finds that settled worldly mindedness is the destroyer of religion, and that every degree of worldly mindedness diminishes its power.

How important, therefore, that all our pursuits be mingled with piety, and how wisely has christianity guarded our worldly tendencies, by requiring of us a piety which is not of set times and forms only, but a habit of thought and life, a principle of action. The world is so dangerous, because we are in the midst of it; it surrounds us; it presses us on every side; it urges, entices, and would make us wholly its own. The preventive to this, is constant watchfulness, habitual devotion, and daily recurrence to the great and powerful motives of our faith. When we have our conversation in heaven, the world is not able to lead us astray.


Ir is a common error to suppose Meekness the gift of nature only; a grace not to be acquired by effort and discipline. In the estimation of very many, he is the meek man, who is possessed of a quiet good nature which came to him at his birth, and is maintained without any exercise of the will on his part; who is always still and acquiescing, because he cannot be otherwise; and is never ruffied by passion, because he has no passions. Now undoubtedly this is a meek man; and, however the world may ridicule him as pusillanimous, his disposition is, in many respects, a desirable one. But it is certainly à mistake to consider such a one alone as meek, to give such only the praise of this virtue, which stands so high on the list of the gospel; when it is so entirely constitutional that it costs him nothing to maintain it, and is incapable by any effort of being increased. The consequence of such a definition must be, to make this quality contemptible in the eyes of men, and set the christian temper below the false spirit which the pride of the world cherishes. Certainly, that virtue, whatever it may be, is

most honourable and praiseworthy, which has been acquired by toilsome discipline, and preserved by unremitted exertion. And yet it happens, that the man who has laboured with toil, anxiety, self-denial, to subdue the headstrong passions which nature has given him; who has wept, and watched, and prayed, that he might get the mastery of his own spirit, and build up the temper of Christ on the ruins of his original violence and pride; even although he has struggled with success, and has become able to restrain his irritability and impetuosity, and religiously keep silence where he once would have cursed; this man would yet be refused by many the title of meekness.

But is it reasonable? Is there any merit greater than that of self-victory? Is there any nobler triumph of christian principle, than that over the stubbornness of the will, and the ferocity of passion? Can any one deserve better the name of christian, than he who has fought and conquered to obtain it? Or is a virtue the less his own, because he is obliged to set a perpetual guard over it? Perhaps there is sometimes an evident struggle to preserve it; you discern a little of the workings of his former self; you see him sometimes struggling to quell the spirit, which attempts again to rise within him in rebellion against the spirit of the gospel. But this marks his fidelity; it is unjust to deny him on account of it, the credit of possessing what he so vigilantly defends. The stream which runs through his grounds would burst its banks and inundate all, if he had not dammed it carefully, and did not watch it continually and because it occasionally breaks a little through the entrenchment, and you see him obliged to watch and repair, will you deny him the praise you give to his neighbour, whose stream flows quietly, and never was turbulent, and never needed restraint? Let us be more just to the merits of our fellow-men, and call things by their right names.

To say, indeed, that meekness is merely a constitutional thing, would be to say, that God requires of all, a temper of which he has created many incapable. This would be absurd and impious. It may undoubtedly be "put on," as the apostle expresses it, by any who will go through the necessary discipline; and although the credit of possessing it may be denied them by men, yet in the sight of God it will be "an ornament of great price."



THE following list of the titles given to Jesus Christ in the New Testament, is worth examining. It is taken from a note to a sermon of Dr. Lant Carpenter.

I believe the following calculation, made by the assistance of Schmid, will be found sufficiently correct, and may assist in leading the reflecting reader to some conclusions, not unfavourable to the Unitarian scheme. In the New Testament our Lord is called Jesus upwards of 600 times, principally in the Gospels; Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, about 130 times; Christ or the Christ, about 270 times, principally in the Epistles; Lord Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus, or Jesus Christ our Lord, &c. upwards of 100 times, but never in the Gospels; Son of God, about 20 times; the Son of God, about 30 times; Son (implying the same thing,) about 40 times; the Son of Man, 80 times; Son of David, 14 times; Beloved Son, 8 times; Only begotten, 5 times; First begotten, 5 times; Saviour, 17 times; Mediator, 4 times; Redeemer, not once; Word, or Word of God, 7 times; God, or a God, once, (John i. 1. see Improved Version and compare John x. 34, 35; on this point however, there is considerable diversity of opinion;*) the Image of God (compare 1. Cor. xi. 7.), twice; the Brightness of God's Glory and express Image of his Person, (more correctly, a Ray of his Glory and an Impression of his Perfections), once; Lord of all (i. e. of Jews and Gentiles Acts x. 36,) once; Lord of the dead and of the living, once; Lord of the sabbath, once; Lord of Glory, twice; Alpha and Omega, once, (see Griesbach on Rev. i. 11;) King of Kings and Lord of Lords, twice; Prince of Life, Prince, Captain of Sulvation, Author and Finisher of our Faith, once each, (the original translated Prince, Captain, Author, signifies a Leader or Chief;) the Life and the Light, several times each; Kurios (generally translated Lord in the Public Version) is applied to Jesus in so many instances, and with so much diversity of sig nification, that it is almost impracticable to give any general state. ment respecting it. If any suppose, that since this word is em

* For a more complete statement on this point, see note to Mr. Channing's Sermon.

« EdellinenJatka »