Page:Sermons by John-Baptist Massillon.djvu/242

 would answer  the  sole  purpose  of  augmenting  the  natural  aversion which  you  have  to  him;  and  that  nature  hath  placed  within  us hatreds  and  likings,  conformities  and  aversions,  for  which  she  alone is to  be  answerable.

To this  I  might  at  once  answer,  by  establishing  the  foundations of the  Christian  doctrine  upon  loving  our  brethren. Is that  man, in consequence  of  displeasing,  and  being  disagreeable  to  your  fancy, less your  brother,  child  of  God,  citizen  of  heaven,  member  of  Jesus Christ, and  inheritor  of  the  eternal  promises? Doth his  humour, his character,  whatever  it  may  be,  efface  any  one  of  those  august traits which  he  hath  received  upon  the  sacred  font,  which  unite  him to you  by  divine  and  immortal  ties,  and  which  ought  to  render  him dear and  respectable  to  you? When Jesus  Christ  commands  us  to love  our  brethren  as  ourselves,  doth  he  mean  to  make  a  precept which costs  nothing  to  the  heart,  and  in  the  fulfilment  of  which  we found  neither  difficulty  nor  hardship? Ah! what occasion  hath  he to  command  us  to  love  our  brethren,  if,  in  virtue  of  that  commandment, we  were  obliged  to  love  only  those  for  whom  we  feel  a  natural fancy  and  inclination. The heart  hath  no  occasion,  on  this point, for  precept;  it  is  its  own  law. The precept  then  supposes  a difficulty  on  our  part:  Jesus  Christ  hath,  therefore,  foreseen  that  it would  be  hard  upon  us  to  love  our  brethren;  that  we  should  find within us  antipathies  and  dislikes  which  would  withdraw  us  from them; and  behold  why  he  hath  attached  so  much  merit  to  the  observance of  this  single  point,  and  hath  so  often  declared  to  us,  that, to observe  it,  was  to  observe  the  whole  law. Aversion to  our  brethren, far,  then,  from  justifying  our  estrangement  from  them,  renders to  us,  on  the  contrary,  the  obligation  of  loving  them  more precise, and  places  us  personally  in  the  case  of  the  precept.

But besides,  ought  a  Christian  to  be  regulated  by  fancy  and  humour, or  by  the  principles  of  reason,  of  faith,  of  religion,  and  of grace? And since  when  is  the  natural  fancy,  which  we  are  commanded by  the  gospel  to  oppose,  become  a  privilege  which  dispenses us  from  its  rules? If the  repugnance  felt  for  duties  were a title  of  exemption,  where  is  the  believer  who  would  not  be  quit of the  whole  law,  and  who  would  not  find  his  justification  and  his innocency, in  proportion  as  he  felt  a  greater  degree  of  corruption in his  heart? Are our  fancies  our  law? Is religion  only  the  support, and  not  the  remedy  of  nature? Is it  not  a  weakness,  even  in the  eyes  of  the  world,  to  regulate  our  steps  and  our  sentiments,  our hatreds and  our  love  toward  men,  merely  upon  the  caprices  of  a fancy  for  which  we  can  give  no  reason  ourselves? Do men  of  this description do  great  credit,  I  do  not  say  to  religion,  but  to  humanity? And are  they  not,  even  to  the  world  itself,  a  spectacle  of contempt,  of  derision,  and  of  censure? What a  chaos  would  society be,  if  fancy  alone  were  to  decide  upon  our  duties,  and  upon reciprocal attentions,  and  if  men  were  to  be  united  by  no  other  law! Now, if  the  rules,  even  of  society,  exact,  that  fancy  alone  be  not the sole  principle  of  our  conduct  toward  the  rest  of  men,  should the gospel  be  more  indulgent  on  that  point? — the gospel,  which