IV.

I PET. V. 8.

BE SOBER, BE VIGILANT; BECAUSE YOUR ADVERSARY, THE DEVIL, AS A ROARING LION,

WALKETH ABOUT, SEEKING WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR.

HER

ERE are two rules given us, enforced by a reason.

We must first be fober. This word, in the original, relates chiefly to temperance in drinking*; but it may easily be extended, and was probably meant to be extended, to all things in which temperance is concerned. This gives it a great range among Christian virtues.

We must next be vigilant. The usefulness of vigilance arifes from the proneness of human na

See Parkhurft's Lexicon.

ture

ture to negligence. Temperance, which acts as a restraint on all our paffions and appetites, is very apt to relax. Such defultory temperance forms no habit. It is the habit of temperance, which religion requires; and which it is the office of vigilance to produce.

Laftly, to awaken us to this vigilance, these two rules are enforced by a reafon. Our adverfary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, feeking whom he may devour.

Whether the devil, as a tempter, has power over mankind, at this time, is a question, which hath often been decided with more boldness than argument. It is certain the Scriptures seem to favour the opinion of fuch exiftence; and it is as certain, that we know nothing of the nature of fpirit, except from Scripture. Good men alfo often experience fuch fubtile temptations, as they cannot account for on any principle, except that of a feducing agent. But whether we take the lion of the text for fome wicked agent, or for temptation in general, ftill it forms an argument very conclufive, We are always in the midst of temptations, and cannot be too much on our guard against them,

V.

JOHN, iii. 3.

EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT

ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

WE

E are here inftructed to prepare ourselves for the kingdom of heaven, in oppofition to that preparation, which the magiftrate thinks fufficient for the kingdoms of this world.

The good of fociety alone is his object. Keep your defires, he cries, within fuch bounds as not to injure your fellow citizens, and I am fatisfied.

But religion goes deeper. We are members, it informs us, of a higher kingdom, into which we must be born, as it were anew. We must not be fatisfied with restraining the outward act; we muft purify the inward affection.

Thus

Thus then we are, in fact, members of two different focieties, for which two different modes of preparation are required.-Which of thefe modes of preparation is fuperior, may be seen, by confidering the first as qualifying us only for one fociety-the other for both. The foldier may fight for glory, or plunder-and the ftatesman may court popularity. Each may benefit fociety; yet as neither has yet made any ground in the doctrine, which enjoins him to be born again; fo neither, of courfe, is qualified for the kingdom of heaven.Whereas, he who is born again—whose actions are governed by the laws of the kingdom of heaven, not only qualifies himself for that kingdom, but promotes more uniformly the good also of that inferior fociety of which he is a member. Thus the foldier who fights for glory or reward, if he have reason to believe he fhall attain neither, withdraws from the fervice as foon as he can he has no other motive to push him on: while the foldier who acts under a sense of religion, has nothing to do with the motives of glory and reward. He acts under higher influence, and obeys the call of his country, as long as his fervices are required.

Such

Such a character, we are told, is ideal. It does not exist. We all mix glory, or reward, or other worldly motives, with our purfuits.

In a degree, no doubt, we do: but perhaps not in fo full a degree as the objector may suppose.. However, on a fuppofition the objection were true, it is ftill no argument against the doctrine. We are not contending how many, or how few obferve the doctrine; but only affert fimply, that if the doctrine were observed, the effect would be, as it is here reprefented.

This again the objector denies. The maxims of the Gospel, he obferves, are fo oppofite to the maxims of the world, that they are unfit to qualify men as foldiers, ftatefmen, or members of a community in any shape; and that no man, who strictly adheres to them, can exert himself properly in any civil department.

This is a bold affertion. But in order to fettle it, the doctrines of Christianity must be well examined-they must be compared with the interests of mankind—and the impoflibility of a union must be fhewn from examples, which have failed, not through want of abilities, (for religion cannot fecure abilities,) but through mere adherence to religious principles.-We affert, therefore, that on a fuppofition two men have equal abilities, he who

has