:

grace; and, unhappily, we sometimes feel, fancy,-perhaps no one, really sincere, ever went so far as actually to allow the clear and fully-formed thought, that such close attention is not now so necessary as, under other circumstances, it would have been the close attention, therefore, is not paid, and see what are the consequences. To a certain extent, the law is made void through faith. The law, we perhaps allow, may require this strictness; but then we are not under the law, and, therefore, are not condemned by it. For such too often is the phrase, "We feel no condemnation."

Milner, the church historian, says, that "the love of the world is the standing heresy by which the church of Christ has in all ages been infected." The observation is as true as it is melancholy. But it does not go far enough, so as to cover the whole case. The love of the world, in its

reference to the affections, is as truly and dangerously heretical, as the most unsound doctrine can be to the intellectual belief. But it is rather species than genus. It is the offshoot of a root of heresy which puts forth other branches. That root is, the practical Antinomianism which we are now investigating. Let us notice two or three of those developed branches, which both indicate its existence and illustrate its character.

1. Is there never seen what may be termed the Antinomianism of worldliness?

(1.) Every one knows that the Gospel, indeed, the entire volume of revelation, forbids all idleness, all neglect of secular duty, especially such as is produced by a pretended regard for religion. This is itself one form of Antinomianism, one of its grossest forms, one which cannot be too severely condemned. Some symptoms of this particular phase occurred in what was, generally, that excellent and exemplary church which had been formed at Thessalonica. But it was at once perceived by the Apostles, and promptly both rebuked and repelled. What is lawful for one, is lawful for all; and what would society be, were religion to afford its sanctions to a slothful heedlessness, to neglect of cleanliness and industry? On nothing does the New Testament lay greater stress, than on the necessity of a wise and diligent attention to the duties of our own calling, be it a low one, or a high one. Universal order is to be preserved by the orderly behaviour of individuals. And this is to be one of the points to which a regenerate conscience is carefully to look. The master is to give to his servants that which is just and equal, because he has a Master in heaven. The servant is to perform his allotted task, not because the eye of his master is upon him, or only when this is the case; but always, and with the same thoughtfulness that is called for by his devotional exercises, prayer, and the sacrament; for "ye serve the Lord Christ." An oppressive, unjust master, or an idle, heedless servant, who does not do for his employer what he would do for himself, is, in either case, an Antinomian. Very beautifully was the development of true religious principle exhibited in the character of Daniel; and the Scriptures record it for an admonition to all who are, generally, in like circumstances. He had envious and bitter foes, who sought his ruin; and could they have found an instance of dishonesty, or even negligence, in the large accounts which he was required to keep, not only would they have secured their object in relation to himself, but in relation to his religion too, which would have been at once dishonoured through the whole realm. No diligence was lacking on their part; and, doubtless, their malignity led them to judge of him by themselves, and to infer that what they would have been in such a situation, that actually was

Daniel. And great would be their rage when they found themselves baffled. They "sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault." And why? Because Daniel set his God always before him. His conscience was enlightened, and by his conscience he was always governed. When in the lions' den, he regarded God, and gave his body to be devoured or preserved as God should will. In his own house, he regarded God; and when all prayer was totally prohibited, knowing that God still required it, "he kneeled upon his knees, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." Nor did he even close his windows to hide himself from the malignant spies. Too magnanimous for ostentation, he was too pious for concealment. He prayed as before, "his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem." And in his office, as first of the three Presidents of the kingdom, to whom the Princes were to present their multifarious accounts, that “the King should have no damage," he regarded God, and attended to these complicated, they must often have been bewildering, accounts, as though he had been engaged in direct works of devotion. Daniel did not pray, did not read the Scriptures, more religiously and conscientiously, than he kept these financial accounts of the vast Persian empire. And what was the consequence? That they were merely honestly kept? that though there might be subordinate mistakes, smaller inaccuracies, there was nothing by which his integrity could be impeached? If his foes could have gone no further than this, although their malignity would have missed its main gratification, yet, could they thus have fixed on him the charge of carelessness and error, they would have triumphed, and regarded themselves as sufficiently, though not entirely, successful in their plot. But, no, Daniel was as careful and exact, as he was honest and upright. With their utmost scrutiny, "they could find none occasion nor fault, because "-and this is the verdict of the Holy Ghost, full of instruction and admonition-" he was faithful," faithful alike in honesty and carefulness, "neither was there any ERROR or FAULT found in him."

This is true religion. This is the proper union, so impressively stated by the Apostle. "Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord." And he who neglects the former, because, he says, he is altogether attentive to the latter, and yet professes the piety of the Gospel, is an Antinomian. Without, perhaps, adverting to the real character, he is indulging one form of earthliness, indolence, and sloth. And so is every one who neglects the particular duties of his actual calling; or, selecting these two leading relations, who is, as a master, oppressive and unjust, as a servant, idle and careless. And are these forms of Antinomianism unknown in the church? Are there no religious masters, who seem only to inquire how they may extract the largest possible amount of gain from those whom they employ? Or religious servants, who set themselves in the place of their masters, and dictate to them how their capital and skill shall be employed, acting as if their only object were to promote their own interests, to serve themselves? Or, coming to domestic life, are there no religious heads of households who are utterly unfeeling and heartless, whose commands are dictated by caprice, and enforced by passion, who act as if their domestics had neither bodies nor souls, had inexhaustible strength, and were incapable either of fatigue or feeling, and who have no other notions of domestic order, than the fulfilment of their own various fancy, and the establishment of the unreasoning despotism: "Do this, because I command it; omit this, because I forbid it?" And, on the other hand, are there no religious domestics who seem as if they were governed by one principle,—a

very simple one, whether right or not, is quite another question,—the greatest possible quantity of wages for the lowest possible quantity of service? religious domestics, who only render "eye-service," acting one way in the presence, and very differently in the absence, of the employer? who are obstinate, pert, wasteful, and extravagant, careless, attending to the affairs of their employers as they would not attend to their own, as they would not allow a servant, if they had a servant, to attend to them? In a word, does every professedly religious master or mistress, every professedly religious servant, act on the plain, easily-understood, easily-applied, principle, "Just so would I act, were I servant, and not mistress," or, "Just so would I act, were I mistress, and not servant?" And yet, is it possible to overlook the fact, that this is the conduct that is most explicitly enjoined on masters and servants, and laid, with the utmost solemnity, on their conscience, in reference to the all-seeing eye of God, and the certain judgment of the last day? Here, then, are two facts, a positive and plain rule; occasional, but strongly-marked, instances of disagreeing conduct, connected with religious profession; that is, the law made void through faith, Antinomianism. Whence can it arise?

(2.) Nor is this by any means the only, or the lowest, form in which this worldly Antinomianism developes itself in visible features. We again take the Scriptures, the written word, acknowledged, in theory at least, by all Protestant Christians, to be, ultimately, the only, and the sufficient, rule, both of faith and practice. Now, on consulting the law and the testimony, by which if men speak not it is because there is no light in them, we undoubtedly find the most explicit and decisive declarations on the subject of man's salvation by grace through faith. But, equally explicit, equally decisive, are the declarations, not only that unworldliness is a duty, but that unworldliness is a certain and testing evidence of religious character. Nothing on the subject of justification by faith is more plainly stated than what is stated on this. Just take as instances of statements continually recurring, under some aspect or other: "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Faith and regeneration are completely antagonistic to the world. "For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world and this is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith." "Covetousness, which is idolatry." In one passage, and that not the only one, "covetousness" is placed with sins on all hands acknowledged to be deadly; and the command respecting them all is, not that the first are to be absolutely shunned, as inconsistent utterly with both union with Christ and church-membership, and the second, censured, condemned in the doctrine, but passed over in practice; all are classed together, and placed in precisely the same category of condemnation. “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh saints.” And lest it should be said that covetousness is only idolatry in principle, the abstract is by the Holy Ghost himself reduced to the concrete; and it is expressly said, "Nor covetous man, who is an idolater." And as the temper is strictly prohibited, so also are all its manifestations. "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."*

* As if the Apostle had said, Instead of living according to the scheme of life proposed by the world, and so manifesting the existence of worldly habits, let the renewing of your mind produce a visible alteration, a complete metamorphosis of character.

So strongly were these declarations felt by the primitive Christians, that surrounded as they were by the corruptions which had infected the whole mass of heathen society, sometimes painfully allured by what was innocent in Heathenism, but deeply criminal in Christianity; and, at other times, bitterly opposed by the spirit of Heathenism, which occasionally became rampant, and boiled over in fierce persecutions—they literally fled from the world, seeking to overcome it by flight, instead of manfully contesting the point, and exhibiting their victory in undeniable unearthliness of social character. Their very mistakes in the application of the principle show the full, the commanding conviction of the changeless truth and importance of the principle itself.

And now let us turn to what is called sometimes the professing world. Do we find there the full, unhesitating admission of the great fact, that worldliness, in any and every form, worldliness, however manifested, is not only at variance with Christianity, but cannot co-exist with it? A large treatise might be filled with descriptions of the evidences of the existence of a worldly temper. The text, "Be not conformed to this world,” is sometimes quoted as though its leading reference were to dress. No such thing. Dress, indeed, is one way in which one kind of worldliness shows itself. But we may dress in the unchanged fashion of a former age, and thus differ greatly in outward appearance from the present, and yet be most thoroughly conformed to the world. Take this, however, as one form: it is only one among many. Do not some professors undeniably love dress? Do not some show how well they love money, by their eagerness in labouring for it, or their unwillingness to part from it? Do none love worldly magnificence and show? Do none love its very business, showing themselves as heartily devoted to it as if they had never heard of another world? Are not these, in all worldly matters, quick, far-seeing, foreseeing, full of intelligence, while, in anything spiritual and even mental, they are dull, and almost devoid of thought? And will not some of them carry on their business in the same way, with the same avidity, and by the same means, concealing, perhaps, the character of those means even from themselves, by some vague declaration, that they cannot do otherwise, if they would get on at all, or that it is the established custom of the trade,— as do others, so that they always seem to be at home in the world? To read the Bible, we might, only contemplating the case in theory, have been led to conclude that its requisitions of decided, reigning, strongly-marked spirituality, its unrestricted condemnation of worldliness, were too positive and weighty; and that, under their influence, the necessary business of society would at least be greatly impeded. But the wonderful book was given by divine inspiration; and herein is its superhuman wisdom evident, that all its strength of declaration has not yet been sufficient for the full, decided, visible counteraction of the gravitation to the world of even the believing heart. Centuries upon centuries have rolled over the church and the world, since Augustine, himself living some centuries after the completion of the scriptural canon, exclaimed, "Woe to thee, torrent of human custom! Who may resist thee? How long shall it be that thou art not dried up? How long wilt thou draw the children of Eve into that vast and perilous sea, across which even they hardly pass who sail in the vessel of the cross?" Might not this complaint of the African Bishop be the complaint of our own day? Yet who perceives it? What church practically recognises the principle in its discipline, however strict, in other respects, that discipline may be? Where is there the same care to remove the covetous man, as the man of fleshly sin? And yet the Scripture

classes them together; and what can be said of the evil of one, in relation to the spirituality of the law of God, that may not equally be said of the other? How many are there, in whom the scriptural marks of worldliness are apparent, read those very Scriptures regularly, without suspicion of the evil? How many lovers of dress, how many lovers of increasing money, how many lovers of keeping money, how many lovers of quiet, decent sensuous enjoyments, regularly read the Scriptures, and see there no admonition for themselves? And so of the various operations of earthly affection. Notwithstanding the repeated declarations of Scripture, that the love of religion, and the love of the world, are not only different, but opposed, though they are said to be inconsistent with each other, though the grand principle of the one is declared to be, not merely the opponent, but the decidedly triumphant opponent, of the other, notwithstanding all this, still has the church to lament the worldliness of members whom she is unable decidedly to repudiate; and still has the world to justify many of its own proceedings, by appealing to the church. We still, therefore, find this practical Antinomianism, this making void the law through faith.

2. Do we find no manifestations of this Antinomianism under the category of temper?

In reference to this, likewise, the New Testament is so explicit, that it might have been anticipated, judging from theory alone, that no mistakes could possibly have arisen. The character under which our Lord proposes himself to his disciples as an example, is that of being "meek and lowly of heart." And St. Peter expressly points to him in his patience under suffering, as "leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps." Every aspect of an amiable temper, using the ordinary descriptive phrase, is presented to us by St. Paul, (Eph. iv. 31, 32; v. 1, 2,) and enforced by reference both to the love of God and the example of Christ. How expressive is his enumeration of particulars! Let the reader, in perusing it, pause at each separate instance, and ask, most seriously, whether he is earnestly and resolutely seeking thus to "stand perfect and complete in all the will of God." "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." Nay, not only are such evils to be renounced, but a frame of mind directly opposed to them is required to be carefully cherished. Not only be not bad-tempered, but be good-tempered. "And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." And be in this respect "followers," imitators, "of God." Not in his power and governing rule, as when he takes vengeance. That belongs to him; and to us the command is, "Avenge not yourselves." But imitate him in his "benignity and philanthropy,' as manifested in Christ. "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us." And thus are we to fulfil one of the purposes of our high calling. "Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." And that this very garment of kindness may be constantly worn, over all, as a fastening girdle, binding all, and keeping all in the right place, "put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness." Instead of allowing yourselves to be ruffled by passion, in any form, whether stormy anger, or gloomy, cherished wrath,

* Titus iii. 4 : Χρηστοτης και φιλανθρωπια,