SERMON XI.

MATTHEW VI. 24.

NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS.

THIS is one of those aphorisms full of meaning, in which the discourses of our Savior abound, and with which he introduces his caution to his disciples against anxiety about their present accommodation. He represents the service of the world and the service of God as two opposite states, incompatible with each other; and, as no man can, at the same time, obey the commands of two masters, each of whom has a claim on his time and labor, so neither can we serve God and the world, for it is impossible to maintain such a divided state of our affections. The claims of the two masters will be perpetually interfering, and we must prefer the interests of one to those of the other.

The disciples must have felt the force of this illustration. The service of the gospel, to which they were called, was absolutely incompatible, not merely with that excessive solicitude about the conveniences of life, which is always a sin, but even with the common care of their families and estates. It was, in fact, saying to them, If you enlist yourselves in the service of the Messiah, you must give up all ideas of accumulating wealth, and, forsaking all care and anxiety, devote yourselves to this new employment.

But this is not merely a lesson to the apostles. The word, Mammon, is the name of a Syrian idol, supposed to preside over riches; and to this specific meaning of the word our Savior, undoubtedly, refers in our text, where the false deity, Mammon, is opposed to the true God.

What, then, is the force of the aphorism in modern language? Is it not this, that no man must hope to divide his services between God and any other object of affection; that the service of the Supreme Being demands supreme affection; or, in other words, religion, if it exists at all, must exist as a prevalent, governing principle? The effect of this will be a consistent and uniform character, in which we may plainly perceive the influence of religious motives, and a principle of obedience to God.

The subject of our discourse from these words, "No man can serve two masters," is the consistency of the religious character.

This subject, which is very plain in itself, is rendered difficult only by the perverse disposition of men to make this consistency of character signify the same thing with perfection. Hence they attempt to elude the reproach of inconsistency by saying, We know that we are not perfect; perfection is not the lot of humanity. This is very true, but it is nothing to the charge. We complain of an habitual inconsistency of character in men who profess to be men of religion; that they allow themselves in certain courses of life, and in uniform omissions of duty, which we maintain to be utterly incompatible with a prevailing sentiment of religious obedience. We perceive, in fact, that, so far are they from earnestly striving after Christian perfection, their hearts are yet divided, and they spend their lives in poor attempts at reconciling their convictions with

their practice, their real pursuits with their acknowledged obligations, their sins with their better resolutions.

In other affairs we find no difficulty in understanding the difference between consistency and perfection of character. When a man, slavishly devoted to the acquisition of riches, is guilty of an action of gross imprudence or extravagance, we are astonished at his inconsistency, because he acts against his governing principles; but we consider it as no mitigation of the selfishness of his character. The very notion of Christian perfection, as a point to which we must be continually tending, but which we are not to expect to reach, completely excludes us from offering it as an excuse for any of our miscarriages; because, if an excuse for any, it must be, from the very nature of the thing, an excuse for all. The subject, then, which we have in view at present, is not the involuntary or occasional defects of men who would be called religious, but their deliberate and habitual inconsistencies of conduct, which prove the absolute want of the religious principle, according to the maxim of our Savior, that "no man can serve two masters."

We suppose ourselves to be now addressing those who retain, in their hours of reflection, a belief, more or less powerful, of the obligations of morality, and the truths of Christianity. They have not cast off all fear of God, and gone over deliberately to the party of unbelievers, but they are not decided whom they will serve. They would be shocked at the imputation of irreligion; yet they do not believe, or do not feel, the inconsistency between their principles and their practice; and they have very inadequate conceptions, I do not say of the perfection, but of the uniformity and congruity, of the Christian char

acter.

In the first place, it may be thought superfluous, that we should rank in this class those inconsistent men who would substitute a sound faith for a holy and virtuous life; for this is not the prevalent mistake of the age. It is supposed, that the days have gone by, in which everything was thought lawful for the orthodox believer, and that God would see no sin in the faithful. It is true, that this is not the place, nor is it, perhaps, the period, in which this error prevails. Christians have, in general, come to a better understanding of the language of Scripture on the subject of faith; and it is universally acknowledged in words, if not in practice, that, "without" personal "holiness, no man shall see the Lord."

There is still, however, a remnant of this error to be seen among those who secretly maintain that no life of piety and virtue is of any avail to salvation, unless it is accompanied with certain peculiar views of the doctrines of Christianity; and that an apparently habitual conformity to the laws of God is only a show of doubtful and rotten fruit, unless the tree has grown in a particular direction, and the roots have been fed from consecrated fountains. This kind of Christianity prevails much in some places; but it is not confined to any particular sects. We find persons among ourselves, particularly at the close of life, who are more anxious to die sound believers than real penitents. And there is hardly any place, where a stress is not laid on some peculiarities of faith, which would be much better placed on some points of practice.

But, as this is not the danger into which you, my hearers, are most likely to fall, I will observe, secondly, on the opposite error, of substituting morality for religion, and supplanting faith by an unenlightened exal

tation of virtue. It is surprising, that any, who profess to believe in the truth and importance of the Christian revelation, should undervalue the influence of faith in the doctrines of the gospel, in the formation of character. Yet it is too plain, that we are disposed to substitute amiable tempers in the place of virtue, and the regularity induced by habits of business for religion. We need no stronger proof of this than the neglect, which prevails, of impressing on the minds of children the great truths of religion, the fear of God and of a judgment to come, compared to the care which we manifest to establish them in life, and put them in a course of occupation, which shall save them from the temporal ruin attendant on profligacy. Yet how are we to secure the characters of our children, if, trusting to their amiable dispositions, we take no care to give them principles; and, leaving them exposed to all the temptations of a corrupt world, we think it of no consequence, how or when they get their religion; and imagine, that, if they stand well with society, they may do well enough without Christianity? This is an inconsistency which, in a Christian parent, is irreconcilable with his own persuasions, and with a religious character. It proves that his own faith is dead, that it is not the root and support of his integrity, that he feels not the worth of his religion, and, of course, that he lives not by it. Men have declaimed loudly against the evils of superstition, and the dangers of implicit faith. Let us be on our guard against the vain expectation, that a character thoroughly virtuous, and faithful toward God and man, is to be supported by any consideration of present convenience, honor, and profit, without the aid of the motives of religion.

We discover other proofs of inconsistency, in the reliance