SERMON VIII.

JAMES iii. 1.

My Brethren, be not many Masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater Condemnation.

THERE has been a difference of opinion respecting the true sense of this text. To some it has appeared that St. James intended no more than to enforce the strong admonition of our Saviour against the too hasty or rash censuring of our neighbours, to bid us "not to judge lest we "should be judged." The other and, I apprehend, clearly the sounder interpretation, supposes the apostle to express a disapprobation of · those men, who, from a too great love of distinction or some other bad motive, set them

selves up as teachers of the word, without having previously obtained the proper qualifications, or duly prepared themselves for the discharge of so important an office. That this is the true meaning of the apostle must sufficiently appear from the word "diaoxahos" bere used, and somewhat inaccurately rendered "master," which in every other passage of scripture is applied to men who teach; and not who "judge" in the sense which belongs to the other interpretation. It has also been well observed that the phrase," be not many," only condemns an improper eagerness to be the thing understood, that it implies that the thing must exist; which cannot be of such improper or unjust judging as we are here supposed to be cautioned against. Lastly, it may be added that the apostle by saying, "we shall receive the greater condem"nation," or rather "the more strict judg"ment," includes himself in the number of those who are or may be subject to this judgment; which might with much propriety be said, if the words refer to the pastoral office: but not soproperly if they were pointed against slander or the rash and unmerited censure of others; these being faults of which the apostle neither was, nor would, even for the sake of example, suppose himself to be guilty.

Thus explained, the caution of St. James applies with great force to that error of which I

am discoursing; or rather to that disposition and that habit which are particularly apt to produce and encourage divisions in the church'.

It is also peculiarly applicable to this division of my subject upon which I am now entering. For it is not any corruption of doctrine of which the apostle complains; but of that spirit of ambition which induces men to press forward as leaders; which causes them eagerly to thrust themselves into that office, which should never be undertaken without the most serious and deliberate consideration, which even those who are best qualified to labour in it, never can, or should undertake without a deep sense of its awfulness, and of the heavy responsibility which is imposed upon all those by whom it is exercised.

How much this sort of error prevails among us, it is impossible for any man not to observe even upon the most transient view: and its wide and increasing extent will be distinctly shewn as I proceed according to the plan which I laid down.

of

You will recollect then that in the conclusion

iny last discourse, having brought down the history of our church from the reformation to

For more on this head bishop Bull may be consulted, whom I have chiefly followed in what I have above stated. See Vol. i. Sermon vi. of his English works.

our days, I proceeded to consider the nature of the religious divisions which at this moment prevail in the country; and I distinguished the separatists from our establishment into two classes; the one differing from us upon fundamental points of doctrine; the other having no such objection to our communion. Of the former I then spoke somewhat at large and it now remains for me to inquire into the state of those other brethren of ours, whose estrangement from us I consider as being, even upon their own shewing, unsupported by any sufficient cause: and who therefore are more directly implicated in the guilt, whatever it be, of keeping up schisms in the church.

The course which I should naturally take would be to lay before you the different descrip tions, by which the individuals of this class of sectaries are distinguished, with their particular tenets and the grounds upon which they attempt to justify their separation from, and hostility to, the establishment. But to any man who will undertake to do this, difficulties almost insurmountable will present themselves. For the truth is, as I have already observed, that the same variety, the same changeableness, nay, the same inconsistency will be found in this class of dissenters as in those which in my last discourse I noticed. The nonconformists in this kingdom (for this name, I apprehend, be

longs principally to those who differ not from us in doctrine, but object only to conformity on account of our discipline.) The Nonconformists of this time, I say, have so little of settled opinion, with respect to the causes of their dissent from us, they have indeed now so long taken it for an established truth, that their separation from us stands in no need of any apology, that we must not wonder if we find that the principle, or rather want of principle, upon which they justify their refusal to be connected with us, should keep them unconnected with each other..

To this state of things we may attribute the prevalence of that general appellation of dissenters, which is studiously affected by all sects. They reap from it two advantages: first, it is a common bond of union (and the only one equally comprehensive which could be devised, since it even takes in that other class of the Unitarians), in their opposition to the national church. It also supersedes the necessity of their ascertaining, nay, of their inquiring into the particular cause why they refuse to join in communion with us; or rather why they will not submit to the rule in ecclesiastical matters, which is established by law.

True it is, we sometimes hear of new and old Dissenters, now and then of Presbyterians, and very often indeed of Methodists. But it would

BB