every one puts the construction upon it which suits his own habits and inclinations, and takes for granted that his views of it are correct. But the truth is, that there is in this subject a need for the nicest discrimination, lest, on the one hand, we make the prohibition more strict than Jehovah himself intended it to be ; or, on the other hand, give to it a latitude which is contrary to his mind, and ruinous to all who practically adopt it. A man who lives in monastic seclusion will be ready to say, that this passage forbids all intercourse with the world : whilst a person living in an unrestrained commerce with the world, will see in it nothing that condemns the most unrestrained compliance with the maxims and habits of the world, provided they be not palpably and grossly immoral. In like manner they will differ as widely respecting the extent of the prohibition as the object of it ; the one supposing that every degree of inclination towards the world is forbidden ; the other, thinking himself at liberty to " wallow in earthly indulgences as a sow in the mireV It is obvious therefore that we should enter on this subject with extreme caution ; deter- mining with the greatest care,
1. The import of the terms —
[What are we to understand by " the world?" In answer to this question, I should say, it comprehends all the things of time and sense, as standing in opposition to the things which relate to a better world. The Apostle Paul suggests to us this very distinction, when he says that we are to " look, not at the things which are seen and are temporal, but at the things which are not seen and eternal0." This will appear more clear, whilst we consider what is meant by " loving" the world. We are not to understand by it every degree of attach- ment to it, but only such a degree as is inordinate, and stich a degree as puts its object in competition with the things which are invisible and eternal. Amongst the things of time and sense must be reckoned a man's intercourse with his own family. Shall we then say, that a man ought to have no pleasure in the society of his own wife and children? Such an absurdity carries its own refutation along with it. Hence then I take the term, not in a positive, but comparative, sense; and regard
" 1 Pet. ii. 22. c 2 Cor. iv. 18.