1825.] Family Sermons.-No. CCIV. On Ephes. v. 30. servants of God were of their nation; they had the appointed rites of Divine worship, the visible presence of God in their temple, his lively oracles in their hands; yet in spirit a large proportion of them were living as much "without God in the world" as the Gentiles who had never heard of his name. Thus also, under the Christian dispensation, many deceive themselves with the outward forms of religion: they have been baptized in the name of Christ, they call themselves his followers, they perhaps even partake of the emblems of his body and blood; they observe many forms of devotion and duties of morality; and this is all that they consider requisite, if indeed they reflect upon the subject at all, to constitute that union to Christ, which the Scriptures point out as of indispensable neBut with all cessity to salvation. this they may still fall far short of a truly spiritual union. The sacraments themselves, upon which perhaps they place a large share of their dependence, are but visible signs and seals of this union: they do not of necessity confer this grace upon the partaker; for there may be true union to Christ, where unavoidable circumstances have prevented a participation in either of them, and there may be an utter disunion where they have been outwardly and visibly received, the latter of them perhaps often, and under circumstances the most solemn. Not indeed that either of these sacred institutions is of slight importance: the true servant of Christ is very far from thinking them so; he views baptism as the divinely appointed visible sign and seal of his cleansing by the blood of Christ; 743 of his burial with him to the deeds of the flesh, and his resurrection to newness of life: he is "baptized into Christ;" the supper of the Lord also he estimates as another divinely appointed sign and scal of this union; "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of but inestimably valuable Christ? and important as they are, our participation of them is not in itself a proof that we are savingly united to him. Again and again must we remember, that the only sure proof of union to Christ is to have the Spirit of Christ. We must love him, we must place our whole dependance upon him for salvation, and we must walk in his steps. The proud man, the vain, the selfish, the worldly, the self-righteous, the impenitent, the unholy, have no evidence of being in this state of union; their dispositions and conduct, shew the fact to be quite otherwise; for union with Christ ever produces If the conformity to his image. heart be void of the spiritual graces which characterise the true Christian, it is self-deception to be contented with any other pretended If any man be in mark of union. Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, and all things are become new." With this simple test then ever at hand, and with humble prayer to the Searcher of all hearts to guide us in the use of it, we cannot fail to ascertain what is our true character in the sight of God; and oh! that we may duly feel the importance of the inquiry, and make no delay in coming to a decision on a point of such infinite importance! MISCELLANEOUS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. ONE of your correspondents has lately touched upon the behaviour due from Christians towards their domestics and dependants, and the subject is most worthy of attention; and that not only for the sake of the servant but also of the master; for every Christian is required to bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit," many of which are called into constant exercise in domestic life. It becomes the faithful follower of Christ, to be watchful to see whether or not he possesses that important proof of Christian sincerity which arises from the habitual exhibition of a spirit of meekness, gentleness, forbearance, and due consideration towards those who are placed under his controul. The following passage, from Paley, describes the relative situation of master and servant in so just and interesting a manner, that it deserves to be familiar to the mind of every Christian master, as a guide for the examination of his own behaviour. "A party of friends setting out together upon a journey soon find it to be the best for all sides, that, while they are upon the road, one of the company should wait upon the rest; another ride forward to seek out lodging and entertainment; a third carry the portmanteau; a fourth take charge of the horses; a fifth bear the purse, conduct and direct the route: not forgetting, however, that, as they were equal and independent when they set out, so they are all to return to a level again at their journey's end. The same regard and respect; the same forbearance, lenity, and reserve in using their service; the same mildness in delivering commands, the same study to make their journey comfortable and pleasant, which he, whose lot it was to direct the rest, would, in common decency, think himself bound to observe towards them; ought we to shew to those who, in the casting of the parts of human society, happen to be placed within our power, or to depend upon us. I do not perceive any foundation for an opinion, which is often handed round in genteel company, that good usage is thrown away upon low and ordinary minds ; that they are insensible of kindness, and incapable of gratitude. If by low and ordinary minds' are meant the minds of men in low and ordinary stations, they seem to be affected by benefits in the same manner as others are, and to be no less ready to requite them: and it would be a very unaccountable law of nature, if it were otherwise. "Whatever uneasiness we occasion to our domestics, which neither promotes our service nor answers the just end of punishment, is manifestly wrong; were it only upon the general principle of diminishing the sum of human happiness. By which rule we are forbidden, 1. To enjoin unnecessary labour or confinement, from the mere love and wantonness of domination; 2. To insult our servants, by harsh, scornful, or opprobrious language. 3. To refuse them any harmless pleasure: And, by the same principle, are also forbidden causeless or immoderate anger, habitual peevishness, and groundless suspicion." The above passage may not be unworthy the notice of "Christian observers." It is written with that delicacy of feeling which, under a certain coarseness of outward manner, Archdeacon Paley possessed in a great degree. We are brought in contact with our domestics every hour of the day; and occasions are constantly arising, which prove considerable trials of temper. Besides, 1825.] M. S. in Reply to Cautions in Relieving the Destitute. towards them, there is less restraint than towards equals or superiors; and therefore harshly to express what we feel, is too often a "sin which most easily besets us.' But if it be, as it undoubtedly is, a duty to try to bring all within our influence to the faith and fear of God, how careful ought we to be, that we do not, by unchristian dispositions, lead them to believe that our own professions of religion are vain! A true delicacy of feeling, independently of a higher principle, would teach us, in all the commands we give, and in all the duties we require, to keep back as much as possible the feeling of superiority, at least not to obtrude it without necessity. It must make a great difference to the happiness of a domestic, whether he is every moment made to feel that he is your depenkindness dent, or whether your leads him to serve you, "not, by constraint, but willingly." No person needs complain that he has not sufficient opportunities of exercising a Christian disposition, when there is occasion for doing this, throughout the day, within his own doors. A CONSTANT READER. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. Your correspondent, in answer to 745 postors, than to suffer one deserving relief afforded be doing evil on his The applicant may be an impostor. Very true: then let him be examined. But "I have no time." That lies with you, and not with the poor object. He presents himself to you as one distressed. Your great and obvious duty is to relieve him. Your duty also is to prevent imposition: but this is inferior in its importance to the other. If you must neglect either of the two, let it be the latter. I have some faint recollection of reading, some years ago, of a gentleman, who deeply regretted having in one instance denied relief to a poor man, under the idea that he was an impostor. The poor fellow died from want, shortly after; and so deeply affected was the gen tleman at the event, that he determined never afterwards to deny relief to an apparently distressed applicant. There are, no doubt, impostors; but there are also, notwithstand ing the changes of the times, many really distressed mendicants. With some such I have on several occasions met. Their prompt answers to any questions proposed to them, their right forward tale of woe, and their heart-felt gratitude when relieved, convinced me that they were so. It is not difficult, in most instances, to detect an impostor. His answers are shuffling and evasive. He manifests a dislike to be minutely interrogated. His story is plausible. He contradicts himself, if he is asked many questions. He shews much shrewdness and cunning. But at times there are characters to be met with, respecting whom nothing satisfactory in either way can be made out. They excite suspicions, and yet afford something that may lead to a belief that they are real objects of charity. Two young fellows, not long ago, called at my house in the dusk of the evening, requesting a place to lie down during the night. The account they gave of themselves was not very satisfactory. Their evident fatigue was the strongest reason that induced me to grant their request. I was not without fear of dishonest intentions on their part. They rested, left in the morning, and were very thankful; and I felt thankful too, that I had been induced, notwithstanding some suspicious appearances, to shew kindness to two very poor and distressed fellowcreatures. They might, it is true, have abused my kindness; but had they done so, I should not have repented of my resolution: because the impression that they deserved relief was stronger than my suspicions; and therefore what I did resulted from a sense of duty. M. S. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. IT is with much satisfaction that I have perused some remarks in your pages on relieving the destitute, because the subject is of very great practical moment. I fear, however, that the real bearings of the question are not likely to be soon settled, unless some preliminary positions are first agreed upon. In conversing with many individuals as prompt in works of charity as enlightened and judicious in the mode of administering it, I have found them lay down almost as a maxim, that the large mass of applicants for relief are not really distressed persons, and that there is incomparably far less danger of doing evil on the side of extreme caution in indiscriminate almsgiving than from hasty profusion. They argue also, that the commands in Scripture to charity have no reference to this question, the very point being whether it is charity to bestow alms on casual applicants. Other benevolent individuals lay down as their maxim, that the majority of applicants need relief, and that a few only are impostors or otherwise improper objects. Now, it is clear, that the two parties can never determine on the same uniform line of conduct till they can come nearer together in theory. What then is the right view of the case, under the existing circumstances of society? Are the injunctions of Scripture, not to turn away from any poor man, to be literally and indiscriminately applied to all who profess themselves to be in distress, or is an enlightened spirit of Christian inquiry to induce us to pause till the necessity is ascertained? It would be well if all the friends of humanity could come to some common understanding on this subject; but as that does not appear to be immediately probable, the next best course is for each to exercise a sound judgment as respects each individual application, taking care that he does not allow his own feelings Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. public, may disseminate and esta- I cannot think this object will be attained by referring, on the one hand, to the writings of those who depreciate the Fathers, or to their eulogists on the other. With regard to Daille's Treatise de l'Emploi des Saints Peres, alluded to by R. X., it is known that he wrote it when he was only thirty-four years of age: now, what is it that this celebrated theologian had so early in life learned to despise? In Rivington and Cochran's Catalogue I find a collection of all the Fathers, 126 vols. fol.; 4, 4to; 7, 8vo; together 137 vol., price 3157.! Is it probable that those who depreciate the Fathers have studied seriatim all these massy tomes; yet bare justice requires that the works of an author should be first read, and then appreciated. By reference to a copious index, by making an extract here and there on our own favourite topics, by culling out absurdities, or by selecting brilliant passages, a writer may attain the reputation of a learned theologian, deeply read in the Fathers; and so, without much fear of detection, he may act as a dictator in this depart-known heterodoxy makes it very desirable ment; and, if his general attainments are known advantageously to the re Though Lardner has laboured in this line so admirably, yet it is probable he has not exhausted the subject, and his well that the ground he has gone over should be retraced by men of better principles. |