LECTURE XIII. FALSE GROUNDS OF SUPERIORITY IN HOLINESS. ISAIAH lxv. 5. Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me : WE are all perfectly well acquainted with the principle, that self-love is the first law of nature,-acquainted with it as a maxim; but also as a matter of experimental feeling; no one ever waited to be taught it as a point of moral truth. It would be a task requiring very great labour and discrimination to determine the just extent of this principle; to determine, that is to say, how far, and on what conditions, consistently with eternal rectitude, the one human being may prefer himself, and his own interests, to every and all of his fellow creatures and their interests. In some manner and degree he inevitably must do so. His own being is his only being, and therefore all the interest of existence must centre there. In the midst of an universe of beings, it is still himself that is the most interesting object to himself. But then there immediately meets him the solemn law, from the Author of his being, the Perfection and the Judge of all righteousness,-"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This cannot be intended in the absolutely and rigorously literal sense; but it must be dictated in a meaning which presses severely, all round, on the sphere of exclusive self-love; so severely, as to compress and crush that affection into a grievous narrowness of space; unless it can escape into liberty and action some other way,—in some modified quality. There is a way in which it can expand and indulge itself without violating the solemn law imposed, namely, that self-love, or self-interest, should be exalted to such a temper, that its gratification, its gratification of itself should actually very much consist in promoting the welfare of others. This is benevolence, or charity; and perfect benevolence would so combine, as almost to identify, the interest a man would feel concerning his own good, with that which he would feel concerning the good of others. And thus self-love, though vitally centering in self, would be continually going out in beneficent exercise on the happiness of others. Yes, As self-love,—maintaining still that nature, it would be going out in this exercise. Self-love and social becoming thus in a very great degree the same, the great law would be fulfilled without repressing and crushing self-love in order to fulfil it. This is a combining, uniting spirit, which makes it my happiness that they should be happy. But, look on mankind, and see whether the self-interest, the self-love, is not generally a dissociating and hostile principle, which is intent on my good as dissevered from theirs, and often in contrast to theirs, and at the expense of it. We come, by our text, to observe, that the hostile quality of self-love is eminently conspicuous in men's self-estimation, as in comparison with other men. The very pleasure of self-estimation consists generally, in what? not in the sense of being conformed to a certain rule and standard, but of being (in assumption) superior to certain other persons, invidiously brought into contrast; insomuch, that, could it be that they should suddenly rise to an equality or superiority, it would cause a feeling of mortification as to myself, and bitterness against them. Think how often men are pleased the most with the faults of those with whom they compare themselves. Those are the delectable points which the eager glance fixes upon! Those are the flowers where the honey is found! and what pleasure to detect new ones during the comparison! and what a disposition to detract from the undeniable better properties in them,—that our own may appear the brighter! What jealousy, mortification, and even hatred, when evident superiority, in worthiness or abilities, may happen to come into comparison! In all manner of departments and professions you see the prevalence of this hostile, malevolent self-estimation. Even in the advantage of personal appearance, with what internal exultation the acknowledged or self-reputed beauty looks on objects less favoured by the casualty of nature; (does not, however, say in the words of the text," Come not near me "—rather, "come," for the sake of contrast! Even in such a thing as the raiment and adorning of the body. In every accomplishment, attainment, talent, art, profession. In property, and all that is denominated the favours of fortune. On the strength of such things what millions of proud emotions there are every day in the hearts of human creatures! THIS is the kind sympathetic fraternity of our depraved race! And in the greatest number of the instances, the point of complacency is, that the good which I possess (or think I do), my fellow mortals do not; (those of them that I am comparing myself with). I feel not, perhaps, a pleasure that simply and abstractedly they do not possess the good in question; but a pleasure that they are put below me in not possessing it; so that it would be a grievance to me that they should possess it, since they then would not be below me; the gratification of my pride being a thing far dearer to me than their happiness. So intensely base in principle is this pride! But, it may also be mistaken and self-deluded in its presumption, as to the fact of superiority. In many instances, the man who is elated in this pride of superiority may really not possess that which he assumes as his just ground for pride. And in the most important case of all, the very pride itself is a proof that he does not possess the supposed good; that is, in the case of the pride of "holiness," the pride of religious virtue, if we may so express it. The language and spirit of the text expose a man as a stranger to true holiness, whatever may be the comparative state between him and the person to whom he thus speaks; and on whatever he may found his arrogant pretensions. But to think, how a man's ruling vice may befool him to make an ostentation of himself in a certain character which the very ostentation itself is the proof that he does not possess! The person addressed in such spirit and terms-" I am holier than thou," might have replied, “That might easily be; I do not wish to make comparisons, but this manner of announcing the fact appears to me a bad sign. Because, holiness implies much communication with God, and I have always understood that that tended to abase and humble a man in his own esteem." He might have replied again," What, then, is it a cause of pleasure to you that I should be less holy than yourself? Is holiness something else than goodness? or does goodness exclude benevolence? Would you rather have cause to condemn me than approve? to despise me than love and respect?" And again-"Stand off,' you say; why, I should have thought that a holy temper of the soul would rather have wished to invite and attract, in order to assimilate; in order to exert a benign and purifying influence. That was the spirit of the most illustrious saints, and will be of their Lord, when he shall be revealed on the earth. Is it, then, the aim and use of your holiness to make a kind of God of yourself, for me to stand in awe of, rather than to draw me with you to adore the true God? Do you want to divide the honour with the Supreme Holiness? If you were an angel the case would not be so. Is not holiness a resemblance, as far as it exists, to God? But he does not say to me,' Stand at a distance, come not near to me. The disposition to arrogate the dignity of holiness,-in other words, of religious worth and excellence, has never become extinct among men, nor the quite consistent disposition to turn it to the use of pride. We may specify a few of the many grounds of pretension, on which this assumption of holiness sustains itself, and takes authority for its pride of comparison with other men. In some instances, an assumption of superior holiness has been made upon the ground of belonging to a certain division, or class, of mankind; a class having its distinction in the circumstance of descent and nativity, or, in some artificial constitution of society. Thus the ancient Jews,in virtue merely of being Jews. Imagine the worst Jew comparing himself with Aristides, Phocion, or Socrates. The Brahmins, in virtue of a pretended pre-eminently holy descent; and emanation from the head of their creating god. In popish countries, the numerous ecclesiastical class. Something of this even in protestant England, within a period not altogether gone beyond remembrance. (Remarkable conversation related by an old friend.) In these instances there has been an assumption of holiness independently of individual personal character. Now, think of such things as are here recounted! What an infamy to perverted human reason, that any thing which might leave the individual evidently bad, in heart and life, could yet be taken as constituting him the reverse of bad, that is, holy! An absurdity parallel to transubstantiation. Happily, among us, such a pernicious delusion is, in a good measure, done away. Perhaps, however, not entirely. We dare not assert |