A SERMON

DELIVERED IN THE CHAPEL OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, FEB. 16, 1845.

Titus 1: 15.— UNTO THE PURE ALL THINGS ARE PURE: BUT UNTO THEM THAT ARE DEFILED AND UNBELLEVING IS NOTHING PURE; BUT EVEN THEIR MIND AND CONSCIENCE IS. DEFILED.

THE Apostle here suggests a general principle, namely, that the manner in which anything affects us depends upon the state of our minds. If our minds are pure, the things we contemplate will be pure-pure to us; that is, will produce a pure effect upon us will excite pure thoughts and pure emotions. But if our minds are impure, then whatever comes before us will be the occasion of defilement will excite impure thoughts and feelings. The impurity or purity is really in ourselves; and the influence of other things is only to give it action. The Apostle in another Epistle applies this principle to things which in their own nature are indifferent, and teaches us, that nothing of this kind is "unclean of itself," and that whatever of uncleanness or defilement there is, comes from ourselves. Our Saviour also brought this principle into view, when he reproved the Pharisees for making so much of external purity while they disregarded purity of heart, and told them to do their duty, and "all things" would be “clean to them."

My object is to illustrate the general principle suggested by the text. And in order that you may come directly to right views of this principle, fix upon two men, one of them in a right state of mind, the other in a wrong state; one pure in heart, the other impure; and let these two men represent the two classes into which mankind are divided, the holy, and the unholy; and then contemplate the manner in which the two men are affected by the objects to which they direct their attention. It is not however to be supposed, that the different thoughts and emotions, of which I speak, belong to all the individuals of each of the two classes in the same form, or in the same degree. My position is, that the exercises of each class are of the same nature.

The proposed illustration will require me to touch upon several particular cases.

Begin then with those things with which we are most familiar; and consider how differently an ungodly, worldly man, and a devout Christian, are affected by the interests and enjoyments of the present life. The worldly man is affected by these things in a worldly manner; that is, he has worldly feelings. And these feelings, which are morally impure, arise from the impurity of his heart. But in view of the same interests and enjoyments, very different thoughts and feelings arise from the pure heart of the devout Christian. The worldly man and the devout Christian often engage in the same pursuits; they mingle in the same scenes, and partake of the same pleasures. But the one carries with him a selfish, worldly frame of mind; the other a spiritual frame. The one supremely loves himself, and seeks his own pleasure and honor; the other loves God, and aims to please and honor him. And as they are thus different from each other in heart, all the pursuits and interests of the world affect them in a differ

ent manner.

The principle under consideration may be illustrated by referring to cases which occur in the common course of human affairs. Go to the family of the first king of Israel, and let Saul and his son Jonathan represent the two classes of men; Saul ungodly, proud and selfish; Jonathan sincere, benevolent and pious. How

differently were they affected towards David! The blameless and lovely character of the son of Jesse and his growing reputation excited the jealousy and hatred of Saul; but the same things excited complacency and joy in the heart of Jonathan. How did it happen that Saul treated David as he did? There was no fault in David. He was a faithful servant and a dutiful son-in-law. Why did Saul hate him, and try to destroy him? It was because Saul had a selfish, envious, wicked heart. He hated David for the very same reasons, for which Jonathan loved him. They both saw that he was a virtuous youth, that he was rising in influence, and had a prospect of attaining to the kingdom. This roused the bitterest feelings and the most violent and murderous designs in the heart of Saul. David was hateful to him, because he had an envious, malignant heart. But Jonathan loved David because he had a benevolent heart, the heart of a friend and brother. And he rejoiced in David's promotion, though he knew it would displace him from the kingdom.

As a still more striking illustration, take the character of Jesus, and the influence it had upon the mind of John, and upon the mind of a self-righteous, ungodly Priest. In the view of John, it was clothed with consummate beauty and excellence. In the view of the ungodly Priest, it had no form or comeliness.· In the mind of the sincere disciple, it excited love and confidence. In the mind of the self-righteous Priest, it excited feelings of aversion and hostility. To the pure mind of John the character of Christ was perfectly pure. But infinite purity itself was not pure to the mind of the ungodly Priest. His heart, already defiled with selfish, worldly passions, showed its defilement more and more by coming into contact with an object, which was so uncongenial to his disposition.

The same principle is made manifest in the different thoughts and feelings of men respecting the appetites and passions which prove temptations to sin. The selfish, ungodly man says with a complaining spirit, why has God given us these strong appetites and passions, when he knew they would be the occasion of so much mischief? Why has he placed us in a condition, which

66

clothes vice with such attractions and renders the practice of virtue so difficult? Why has he left us in such a state, that we need something above human power to make us holy and happy? Why has God made us thus? Such are the thoughts and feelings which are apt to arise in the selfish, carnal heart. Such are the bitter waters which flow from this bitter fountain. How different the thoughts and feelings of the man who has a püre heart and a right spirit. Who am I, he says, that I should reply against God? "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus ?" If such a man could himself see no goodness or justice in this divine proceeding, he would still bow submissively to the unsearchable wisdom of God, and say, even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." But, in that very constitution of man, which is so often made a matter of complaint against God, the intelligent Christian finds clear evidence of divine benevolence. For he well knows, that his natural appetites and passions, when unperverted, and regulated as they should be, are sources of pure and virtuous enjoyment; and that, if he were without them, he would be incapable of some of the best earthly pleasures, and would be wholly unfit for the present life. And suppose that the proper government of his passions costs him a great sacrifice. He cheerfully makes the sacrifice, for the sake of testifying his reverence and love to his Saviour and giving glory to his name. He says welcome self-denial, welcome the cross, if I may thereby honor God, and acquire a greater conformity to his holy law.

But the good man takes still another view of the subject. That his natural inclinations are so headstrong and so hard to be restrained, he considers his own fault. The passions of Jesus were not violent and ungovernable. And he knows that his own would not have been so, had he always regulated them according to the will of God, and kept himself free from the disorder of sin. Sin, and all the waywardness and turbulence of the passions which accompany it or flow from it, he ascribes not to God, but to himself.

When the selfish, worldly man looks at the evils of the present

life, and reads what the Scriptures teach of the endless sufferings of the world to come; his feelings are disturbed. He asks, why there should be so dreadful a punishment for such offences. No arguments can satisfy him of the justice of God in the evils endured in this world, much less the everlasting miseries of the future state.

But this whole subject comes with a very different aspect before the mind of a humble, devout Christian. Perhaps he also once made objections to the present and future punishment of sin. But his objections have vanished. He has, in some measure, a just conception of the intrinsic evil and hatefulness of sin, and is fully satisfied that the punishment which God now inflicts, and which he threatens to inflict hereafter, is no more than equal to the demerit of transgressors. So far as the present life is concerned, he rather wonders that so dreadful an evil as sin is not visited with a severer retribution. And if at any time he finds that the endless misery which is to come upon the wicked has a greatness and a dreadfulness, which is incomprehensible and overwhelming, he sees also that sinning against God is an evil of incomprehensible greatness. And while he is totally unable by his own reason to measure the evil of sin, or the dreadfulness of the threatened punishment, and is of course unable to make out the exact correspondence of the one with the other; he believes they are correspondent; and from the infinite perfection of God, he certainly concludes that no sinner in this world or in the next ever endures a punishment which is beyond his desert, or which perfect justice and goodness do not require.

There is no subject on which different individuals have had views and feelings more at variance with each other, than the existence of evil, particularly moral evil. The unbeliever, the caviller, has objections against what is a plain matter of fact, and against the righteous government of God in regard to it. He goes back to the first human sin; and with a complaining spirit he asks why God gave so strict, and so unnecessary a prohibition to our first parents; and why he affixed a penalty so dreadful for such an offence; and why he left them exposed to so artful and power40

VOL. V.