LECTURE X.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY OR BENEVOLENCE.

2 PETER I. 5-7.

GIVING ALL DILIGENCE, ADD TO YOUR FAITH VIRTUE, AND TO VIRTUE KNOWLEDGE, AND TO KNOWLEDGE TEMPERANCE, AND TO TEMPERANCE PATIENCE, AND TO PATIENCE GODLINESS, AND ΤΟ GODLINESS BROTHERLY KINDNESS, AND TO BROTHERLY KINDNESS CHARITY.

CHARITY, though last named in our text, is not the least important of the Christian virtues. On the contrary, an inspired apostle, comparing faith, hope and charity, has expressly said, "the greatest of these is charity." Let it not be forgotten, however, that neither this Christian grace, nor any other which goes to constitute a part of the Christian character, can exist alone; much less, independently of Christian faith. All these virtues are important in their places, all are mutually dependent, all spring alike from the same gracious and life-giving principle, all, therefore, are worthy of careful and diligent cultivation; nor can the claims of any one of them be safely neglected. But charity holds among them a prominent place, and claims peculiar attention. It is, indeed, in the comprehensive sense of the term, the essence of religion, the consummation of faith, the crown of humility, "the end of the commandment," "the fulfilling of the law." And even in the restricted sense, in which the term is used in our text, where it evidently denotes merely

love to man, charity is a crowning virtue in the Christian system; and, therefore, worthy of particular attention and diligent cultivation.

With a view to recommend the cultivation of this Christian affection, with a faithful discharge of all involved duties; and thus to enforce the last part of the exhortation in our text; "add to your faith-charity," I shall endeavor, as accurately as I can, to explain the term; pointing out the boundaries between this and other Christian graces, distinguishing it from all counterfeits, describing its nature, and showing its operations and effects. And this I shall attempt to do, both negatively and positively.

I. Negatively. Under this general head of discourse, I observe,

1. That charity, as the term is used in our text, does not comprehend all the religious affections. This we have, indeed, already intimated; but it is proper here to state the fact more explicitly and illustrate it more clearly. Let it be remembered, then, that the terms charity and love in the New Testament, are translated from the same original Greek word. Of course, where the sense is not limited by the nature of the subject, nor by the import of the context, they possess the same meaning and denote precisely the same thing. Thus in those two passages of the apostle to the Gentiles, already quoted; in one of which he says, "love is the fulfilling of the law," and in the other, "the end of the commandment is charity," the original word being the same, the subject of discourse being likewise the same, and no restricting clause being added to either, it is evident, at first view, that the terms charity and love there denote the same universal principle, the exercise both of pious and benevolent affections, the ́spirit and substance of the two great commands, on

which hang all the law and the prophets, love to God and love to man! But it is equally evident that both these terms are sometimes limited and restrained in their meaning, either by some qualifying epithet, or by the very nature of the subject of discourse. Thus "love to God," "love to man," "love of the brethren," are phrases denoting each a peculiar exercise and manifestation of the affections of the Christian; and of course limiting the signification of the term love. So, likewise, the term charity in that beautiful description of Christian philanthropy, in the thirteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, is by the description itself restricted in import, and seen, at once, to be confined to the exercise of the social affections, regulated by heavenly wisdom and sanctified by divine grace. In our text, I add, the term is obviously limited, and restricted to the same meaning by the connection in which it stands. The term godliness, as we stated in a preceding discourse, includes love to God; and the term brotherly kindness, denotes the peculiar attachment among Christians; leaving the term charity to occupy the intermediate space; denoting love to mankind, or benevolence, or Christian philanthropy.

2. Our second negative remark is, that the charity enjoined in our text, or that love and good will to mankind which the gospel requires, is totally distinct from what is usually denominated natural affection, or private attachment to relatives and friends. It is true, that instinctive attachment, which parents feel to their children and children to their parents; and which exists with different degrees of strength in all the relations of life, is an original and highly important principle of human nature; if not absolutely necessary for the preservation of the human race. It is true,

likewise, that a perversion of these instincts and a want of these natural affections in a person, involves great guilt and implies peculiar hardness of heart. He that provides not for his own household, according to the decision of inspiration, is worse than an infidel. Still it is equally true, that the existence of these natural affections, this instinctive attachment to kindred and friends, is not Christian charity, and furnishes no evidence of religious principle. The former may exist in a high degree, and operate with great power, where the latter is entirely wanting. For, if it be true, according to the oft-repeated maxim, that "charity begins at home;" it is no less true, that that which "begins and ends at home," is not Christian charity. The private, natural affections, I said, furnish no evidence. of holy principle. They are common to the wicked and the good. Nay; they are not confined to the human race. Other animals, as well as men, have an instinctive attachment to their kind, to their associates, more especially to their offspring. They guard them in times of danger, protect them against the assaults of enemies, nourish them in their weakness, and provide for their wants. Such attachment, therefore, does not result from religious principle; nor is it the effect of reason and conscience. It is a mere instinctive propensity of animal nature; wisely implanted, indeed, but including in it nothing moral, and furnishing no mark of distinction between virtue and vice. Let none, then, make it a criterion of moral character. Let none imagine, that they possess Christian charity, or that love which the gospel inculcates, merely because they feel the instinctive affections of animal nature; merely because they do what infidels may do, provide for their own; what abandoned sinners may do, love those that love them; what even the beasts

of the field may do, protect and nourish their offspring. Christian charity, as will soon be made apparent, is a higher, a more distinguishing principle; a principle not common to all sensitive beings, not even possessed by all rational beings; but peculiar to those whose feelings are regulated by intelligence and a good conscience, who are, at least in a measure, sanctified through the truth.

3. We remark, again, under our first general head of discourse, that there is a natural sympathy, a blind compassion, which has sometimes been mistaken for charity; which is nevertheless, till sanctified, perfectly distinct from it; and is often seen in its most elevated flights and efficient operations, entirely separated from religion and even from reason. Indeed, this, like the private affections, is a mere animal instinct, leading not only the good, but often the most wicked of the human race; not only men, but frequently the most ferocious beasts, to sympathize with their fellows in distress, and fly to their relief. Think not, then, that a blind feeling, an indiscriminate sensibility, a sympathy which is common to rational and mere sensitive beings, can constitute Christian charity. It is true, this instinct, like the private affections and relative attachments, was implanted in animal nature for a wise and benevolent purpose; but like them, it is not a moral quality, it is not a Christian grace, it is not a holy principle. In itself considered, it constitutes neither a good nor a bad character, but it may be subservient to either. Unsanctified, however prompt and powerful, it leaves the heart polluted and the man unholy. When enlightened and well directed, indeed, it gives energy to benevolent enterprise. Its implantation, therefore, marks the wisdom of Him who implanted it in the human breast. But as an animal