by itself, and not others by it; just as it is love that loves by itself, and hatred that hates.

.

At first sight, indeed, it would appear, as if temperance was a secondary or consequential property formed by the prevalence of one motive over another: but as this must needs happen on the exhibition or prevalence of any property, v. g. that the next for exhibition is restrained there by, temperance would be a mere shadow, if it were no more than such a consequence. It is a positive and independent property, as much as any that we are endowed with, and signifies as much as any in the lump; so that the first apostle may be thought to have spoken very correctly where he talks of adding temperance to knowledge, &c.; as other good characteristics should be added to temperance. Yet there can be no impropriety in conceiving any good property or characteristic to be seasoned, qualified, or improved by an honest association; as justice for example, by an association with mercy, and temperance by an association with knowledge: neither can there be any false logic in supposing one property to act as a moderator, antagonist, or counterpoise to another; for such indeed is the case with all. All our properties, as elsewhere observed, being so many and various, and in constant force or existence, are poised against each other with various weight or in various degrees; as the fear of God, and the fear of man too against the destructive principles of lust, vanity, ambition, rage, impiety, and other manias; or against timidity and servility, weakness and overweening, doating and superstition, obstinacy and opposition, envy and avarice, with other weaknesses. Of these properties, or their sorts either, none should be allowed to weigh against such principles as have been mentioned and against the fear of God especially: but should this seem likely, and the wrong side about to preponderate, temperance would be apt to trim the scales afresh on the first appeal of judgment or knowledge, sending presently one up and the other down in a new direc

tion: when that which weighs most, being the key-note as it were of our existence, will necessarily predominate as long as it continues such. Only we should observe, that temperance will not then be self-command, but the fear of God-command, or the fear of man-command; i. e. the dominion of faith in the one instance, and of policy or cowardice according to circumstances in the other.

As for what may be further said of self-command, which is paralleled by temperance, and of which the several species are seemingly indicated by other coercive properties, with self prefixed-as self-abasement, self-accusation, self-correction, self-denial, self-pollution, and self-possession; they all belong to the supposed internal government of the kingdom, the reality of which this is not a place to question. And we must rather confine ourselves here to that qualified sort of self-command which consists in temperance. It is temperance when either the appetite or the aversion towards one object is successfully thrown against the appetite for another; as an appetite for power against the appetite for pleasure, or an aversion to the disgusting image of drunkenness against the appetite for debauchery. It is temperance when a man acts and speaks like one who has a thorough possession of himself; being in a manner free from the control of any undue influence, any influ ence that might tend to captivate or degrade him; like that of ambition, avarice, obstinacy or any other besetting sin (Heb. xii. 1), as the apostle styles it; and it is the same apostle who reasons so beautifully on this principle in another place, concluding with an exhortation “after the manner of men", as he says; but, in truth, after a manner that is seldom equalled by them. "Know ye not (says he) that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? . . . . I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now

yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness" (Rom. vi. 16—19).

Thus temperance will be an effect of freedom, as freedom is an effect of temperance, both approaching to the idea of an internal government. And herein we find one principal difference between the human and brute species, v. g. that with the former there is at least a show of selfgovernment; as may be gathered from the peculiar irregularity of their conduct. For brutes, except in the case of two or three provident species, will never miss an opportunity of gratifying their hunger and thirst, their lust, animosity and other humours whenever they press them; while man on the contrary being endowed with all the same, is yet often seen to restrain them, when his faith, ambition, and other motives unknown to brutes appear to demand this sacrifice.

It is their greater ability that makes the good characteristic, temperance, more necessary for men than for brutes. For the same reason temperance will be rather more necessary to princes in some respects than to private persons, as to those who have not in so full a share the advantage of others to govern them, and so to take off the trouble in some measure from their hands. And if so trifling an elevation of one man above another may give a greater occasion for temperance, or self-government, there can be no doubt of pure intellectuals, or such as find but little temptation in the incidentals before mentioned, still, having ample room for temperance; because it is understood that they have ample room for enjoyment, and wherever that exists we may also apprehend some room for abuse, consequently for temperance to avert it. Indeed we are plainly informed of some angels which really did find but too much room for abuse even in a celestial condition, "the angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude vi.). They became intemperate, or something equivalent to it, and were hurried headlong by an insane ambition until they encountered the wretched fate that put a stop to their

career; "being reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Ibid.), sad monuments through its failure of the value of this sublime property of temperance! of which there are also a few shades worth noticing.

-1: 2, So high indeed does this good characteristic stand among heavenly virtues, that it seems almost to enjoy not only the authority but also the retinue of a primate, being usually accompanied with several of the excellent properties before mentioned: as moderation, frugality, economy, with abstinence and self-denial; the first of which is considered by some an improvement on temperance: but not, as it seems, correctly; since to abstain is easier than to refrain, to exceed than to complete, to overdo than to do nicely; as it is easier to shoot either above the mark or beyond, than to hit. Abstinence is only a greater and not a better degree of temperance; respecting chiefly the lowest objects, such as eating and drinking for example: which can afford, one should think, no very great sacrifice; whatever we eat and drink, whether in the hollow of our veins, in their substance, or in any other channel, being intrinsically no more to us than as corn in a mill. And yet how many are there in the world who devote themselves in a manner to eating and drinking; sacrificing their noblest constituents to meat and vegetables: “whose god is their belly” (Phil. iii. 19); or who worship viands: being the same with "the evil world; (as David styles them) which have their portion in this life: whose bellies Thou (O Lord) fillest with thy hid treasure" (Ps. xvii. 14), i. e. with farfetched dainties! But such things being only incidental, are not among the proper objects of temperance; they are only objects for a fastidious spirit; and that spirit is the object of temperance, with every other spirit that ought to be restrained. Among these anger is one of the more especial: here is the proper sphere of temperance, of its exertions, glory, and triumph. For, as Solomon finely remarks" he that is slow to anger is better than the

mighty and he that ruleth his spirit, than he that taketh a city" (Prov. xvi. 32).

3, Another follower of temperance is more like it than abstinence, as having, like that, self for its object; which its naming Self-denial implies; at the same time that it also implies a flatter and more decided opposition to the same, or at least to flesh and blood, than its principal implies. For temperance does observe some measures: but self-denial will shew no quarter. It is like repudiating or putting off our own natural disposition: and perhaps disgracing and chastising it at the same time by self-abasement, with fasting, and real mortification, and more than mock discipline: rending our hearts; (as the prophet says) and not our garments (Joel ii. 13). And with some this self-repudiation would be a very serious effort to be consistent. For according to the discipline of the kingdom every man is required to put off according to what he takes on him: and so one who takes upon himself the weight of the ministry, would be required to put off more enjoyments than common for the sake of the ministry, that he might be the more entirely devoted thereto. "No man that warreth (says St. Paul) entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him. to be a soldier" (Tim. II. ii. 4). " So, likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath (says the Master) he cannot be my disciple" (Luke xiv. 33). We owe this sacrifice to his example, and our own occasions.

The object of such a sacrifice, however, is the edification of the subject; to mortify and destroy all the wicked and unsocial principles of his soul; and not wantonly to macerate the poor harmless body: "for no man ever yet hated his own flesh" (Eph. v. 29) except with a view and as a likely way to macerate the haughty, insolent, and cruel spirit by which a man's soul is possessed. And, perhaps, some other method, as the less painful custom of throwing dust on his own head, practised formerly in Israel (Josh, vii. 6, &c.), or others throwing dust at him, which they say is still practised in the East, if

VOL. I.

X

5