Part 2 (1/2)

The wicked man was defiantly arrogant, and the forgetful good man was criminally self-confident, when they each said, 'I shall not be moved.'

We are only taking up the privileges that belong to us if, exercising faith in Him, we venture to say, 'Take what Thou wilt; leave me Thyself; I have enough.' And the man who says, 'Because G.o.d is at my right hand, I shall not be moved,' has the right to antic.i.p.ate an unbroken continuance of personal being, and an unchanged continuance of the very life of his life. That which breaks off all other lives abruptly is no breach in the continuity, either of the consciousness or of the avocations of a devout man. For, on the other side of the flood, he does what he does on this side, only more perfectly and more continually. 'He that doeth the will of G.o.d abideth for ever,' and it makes comparatively little difference to him whether his place be on this or on the other side of Jordan. We 'shall not be moved,' even when we change our station from earth to heaven, and the sublime fulfilment of the warranted confidence of the trustful soul comes when the 'to-morrow' of the skies is as the 'to-day' of earth, only 'much more abundant.'

MAN'S TRUE TREASURE IN G.o.d

'The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup; Thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.'--PSALM xvi. 5, 6.

We read, in the law which created the priesthood in Israel, that 'the Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them. I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel' (Numbers xvii. 20). Now there is an evident allusion to that remarkable provision in this text. The Psalmist feels that in the deepest sense he has no possession amongst the men who have only possessions upon earth, but that G.o.d is the treasure which he grasps in a rapture of devotion and self-abandonment.

The priest's duty is his choice. He will 'walk by faith and not by sight.'

Are not all Christians priests? and is not the very essence and innermost secret of the religious life this--that the heart turns away from earthly things and deliberately accepts G.o.d as its supreme good, and its only portion? These first words of my text contain the essence of all true religion.

The connection between the first clause and the others is closer than many readers perceive. The 'lot' which 'Thou maintainest,' the 'pleasant places,' the 'goodly heritage,' all carry on the metaphor, and all refer to G.o.d as Himself the portion of the heart that chooses and trusts Him.

'Thou maintainest my lot'--He who is our inheritance also guards our inheritance, and whosoever has taken G.o.d for his possession has a possession as sure as G.o.d can make it. 'The lines are fallen to me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage'--the heritage that is goodly is G.o.d Himself. When a man chooses G.o.d for his portion, then, and then only, is he satisfied--'satisfied with favour, and full of the goodness of the Lord.' Let me try to expand and enforce these thoughts, with the hope that we may catch something of their fervour and their glow.

I. The first thought, then, that comes out of the words before us is this: all true religion has its very heart in deliberately choosing G.o.d as my supreme good.

'The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup.' The two words which are translated in our version 'portion' and 'inheritance' are substantially synonymous. The latter of them is used continually in reference to the share of each individual, or family, or tribe in the part.i.tion of the land of Canaan. There is a distinct allusion, therefore, to that part.i.tion in the language of our text; and the two expressions, part or 'portion,' and 'inheritance,' are substantially identical, and really mean just the same as if the single expression had stood--'The Lord is my Portion.'

I may just notice in pa.s.sing that these words are evidently alluded to in the New Testament, in the Epistle to the Colossians, where Paul speaks of G.o.d 'having made us meet for our portion of the inheritance of the saints in light.'

And then the 'portion of my cup' is a somewhat strange expression. It is found in one of the other Psalms, with the meaning 'fortune,' or 'destiny,' or 'sum of circ.u.mstances which make up a man's life.' There may be, of course, an allusion to the metaphor of a feast here, and G.o.d may be set forth as 'the portion of my cup,' in the sense of being the refreshment and sustenance of a man's soul. But I should rather be disposed to consider that there is merely a prolongation of the earlier metaphor, and that the same thought as is contained in the figure of the 'inheritance' is expressed here (as in common conversation it is often expressed) by the word 'cup,' namely, 'that which makes up a man's portion in this life.' It is used with such a meaning in the well-known words, 'My cup runneth over,' and in another shape in 'The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?' It is the sum of circ.u.mstances which make up a man's 'fortune.' So the double metaphor presents the one thought of G.o.d as the true possession of the devout soul.

Now, how do we possess G.o.d? We possess things in one fas.h.i.+on and persons in another. The lowest and most imperfect form of possession is that by which a man simply keeps other people off material good, and a.s.serts the right of disposal of it as he thinks proper. A blind man may have the finest picture that ever was painted; he may call it his, that is to say, n.o.body else can sell it, but what good is it to him? A lunatic may own a library as big as the Bodleian, but what use is it to him? Does the man who collects the rents of a mountain-side, or the poet or painter to whom its cliffs and heather speak far-reaching thoughts, most truly possess it? The highest form of possession, even of things, is when they minister to our thought, to our emotion, to our moral and intellectual growth. We possess even them really, according as we know them and hold communion with them. But when we get up into the region of persons, we possess them in the measure in which we understand them, and sympathise with them, and love them. Knowledge, intercourse, sympathy, affection--these are the ways by which men can possess men, and spirits, spirits. A disciple who gets the thoughts of a great teacher into his mind, and has his whole being saturated by them, may be said to have made the teacher his own. A friend or a lover owns the heart that he or she loves, and which loves back again; and not otherwise do we possess G.o.d.

Such owners.h.i.+p must be, from its very nature, reciprocal. There must be the two sides to it. And so we read in the Bible, with equal frequency: the Lord is the inheritance of His people, and His people are the inheritance of the Lord. He possesses me, and I possess Him--with reverence be it spoken--by the very same tenure; for whoso loves G.o.d has Him, and whom He loves He owns. There is deep and blessed mystery involved in this wonderful prerogative, that the loving, believing heart has G.o.d for its possession and indwelling Guest; and people are apt to brush such thoughts aside as mystical. But, like all true Christian mysticism, it is intensely practical.

We have G.o.d for ours, first, in the measure in which our minds are actively occupied with thoughts of Him. We have no merely mystical or emotional possession of G.o.d to preach. There is a real, adequate knowledge of Him in Jesus Christ. We know G.o.d, His character, His heart, His relations to us, His thoughts of good concerning us, sufficiently for all intellectual and for all practical purposes.

I wish to ask you a plain question: Do you ever think about Him? There is only one way of getting G.o.d for yours, and that is by bringing Him into your life by frequent meditation upon His sweetness, and upon the truths that you know about Him. There is no other way by which a spirit can possess a spirit, that is not cognisable by sense, except only by the way of thinking about him, to begin with. All else follows that.

That is how you hold your dear ones when they go to the other side of the world. That is how you hold G.o.d, who dwells on the other side of the stars. There is no way to 'have' Him, but through the understanding accepting Him, and keeping firm hold of Him. Men and women that from Monday morning to Sat.u.r.day night never think of His name--how do they possess G.o.d? And professing Christians that never remember Him all the day long--what absurd hypocrisy it is for them to say that G.o.d is theirs!

Yours, and never in your mind! When your husband, or your wife, or your child, goes away from home for a week, do you forget them as utterly as you forget G.o.d? Do you have them in any sense if they never dwell in the 'study of your imagination,' and never fill your thoughts with sweetness and with light?

And so again when the heart turns to Him, and when all the faculties of our being, will, hope, and imagination, and all our affections and all our practical powers, when they all touch Him, each in its proper fas.h.i.+on, then and then only can we in any reasonable and true sense be said to possess G.o.d.

Thought, communion, sympathy, affection, moral likeness, practical obedience, these are the way--and not by mystical raptures only--by which, in simple prose fact, it is possible for the finite to grasp the infinite, and for a man to be the _owner_ of G.o.d.

Now there is another consideration very necessary to be remembered, and that is that this possession of G.o.d involves, and is possible only by, a deliberate act of renunciation. The Levite's example, that is glanced at in my text, is always our law. You must have no part or inheritance amongst the sons of earth if G.o.d is to be your inheritance. Or, to put it into plain words, there must be a giving up of the material and the created if there is to be a possession of the divine and the heavenly.

There cannot be _two_ supreme, any more than there can be two pole-stars, one in the north and the other in the south, to both of which a man can be steering. You cannot stand with

'One foot on land, and one on sea, To one thing constant never.'

If you are to have G.o.d as your supreme good, you must empty your heart of earth and worldly things, or your possession of Him will be all words, and imagination, and hypocrisy. Brethren! I wish to bring that message to your consciences to-day.

And what is this renunciation? There must be, first of all, a fixed, deliberate, intelligent conviction lying at the foundation of my life that G.o.d is best, and that He and He only is my true delight and desire.

Then there must be built upon that intelligent conviction that G.o.d is best, the deliberate turning away of the heart from these material treasures. Then there must be the willingness to abandon the outward possession of them, if they come in between us and Him. Just as travellers in old days, that went out looking for treasures in the western hemisphere, were glad to empty their s.h.i.+ps of their less precious cargo in order to load them with gold, you must get rid of the trifles, and fling these away if ever they so take up your heart that G.o.d has no room there. Or rather, perhaps, if the love of G.o.d in any real measure, howsoever imperfectly, once gets into a man's soul, it will work there to expel and edge out the love and regard for earthly things. Just as when the chemist collects oxygen in a vessel filled with water, as it pa.s.ses into the jar it drives out the water before it; the love of G.o.d, if it come into a man's heart in any real sense, in the measure in which it comes, will deliver him from the love of the world.

But between the two there is warfare so internecine and endless that they cannot co-exist: and here, to-day, it is as true as ever it was that if you want to have G.o.d for your portion and your inheritance you must be content to have no inheritance amongst your brethren, nor part amongst the sons of earth.